Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Michael D. Tann v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 2015No. 09-CF-1438+Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGlickman, Associate Judge

For the most part, I join the per curiam opinion disposing of the appeals in these *498several cases. I cannot join Section VII.C, however. In that section, my colleagues hold that appellants Harris and Tann could be liable for aiding and abetting Robert Foreman’s shooting of James Taylor , and Bernard Mackey even if Harris and Tann were unaware of Foreman’s presence or actions and did not intend to assist or encourage Foreman in his criminal activity. I believe my colleagues in the majority base that holding on an erroneous theory of accomplice liability — a novel theory of their own devising,…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Nye & Nissen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  4. United States v. PeoniCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
  5. Rosemond v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014

20 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