Legal Opinion
FURL J. WILLIAMS, ARTHUR TERENCE BULLOCK, and MARTEESE NORMAN v. UNITED STATES
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 23, 2015No. 12-CF-1604, 12-CF-1605, 12-CF-1504PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REID, Senior Judge:
In these appeals, appellants Furl J. Williams, Arthur Terence Bullock and Marteese Norman, challenge their convictions of robbery1 on various grounds — (1) insufficiency of the evidence (Mr. Williams and Ms. Norman), (2) erroneous denial of a motion to sever (Mr. Williams and Mr. Bullock), (3) erroneous denial of a motion to suppress (Mr. Williams and Mr. Bullock), and (4) abuse of discretion in dismissing a juror (Ms. Norman). Because of our disposition, we consider only the first issue. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Williams, Ms. Norman and Mr.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rivas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Owens v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- United States v. Kevin GilmoreCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Raymond WagstaffCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. KetchumCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- MYRON O. GRAY v. UNITED STATESDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- IN RE: Z.B.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- Kywone D. Pelzer v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- Bailey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2021
- Kelly v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.