Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bradshaw v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 1, 2012No. 12-CO-1653Published

1ConcurrenceBeckwith, Associate Judge

I concur in the result and agree with the Per Curiam opinion that the trial court on remand must make specific findings whether clear and convincing evidence exists that “no condition or combination of conditions [under D.C.Code § 23-1321(c) ] will reasonably assure ... the safety” of *399Ms. Bradshaw. D.C.Code § 23-1322(b)(2) (2001). I also agree with the Per Curiam opinion to the extent that it orders this case remanded because the trial court did not adequately apply this court’s holding that § 23 — 1322(b)(1)(C) authorizes pretrial detention for threatening conduct against a prospective…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Blackson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Pope v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Covington v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API