Legal Opinion

Martin v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1991No. 89-885, 89-1523Published

1DissentWagner, Associate Judge

In my opinion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial, which he requested to afford him an opportunity to call as a witness his co-defendant, Stephen Brandon. The co-defendant had entered a plea of guilty after completion of the government’s case. The record belies any claim that appellant was entitled to a mistrial or that the interests of justice would be served by a retrial. I agree with my colleagues that Jackson v. United States, 329 A.2d 782 (D.C.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 851, 96 S.Ct. 95, 46 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975), governs the…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Carlos Manuel Parodi, United States of America v. Edwin Barton Conway, United States of America v. Robert Lee LawsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  2. James L. Byrd v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Florida Division of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
  3. King v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Hackney v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. United States v. Glenwood M. FordCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API