Legal Opinion

District of Columbia v. Benefield

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 29, 1968No. 4582, 4583PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Two cases (traffic and disorderly conduct) had been continued for trial previously, once at the request of appellee and once by mutual consent of the government and appellee. On the third trial date, the government, over the objection of defense counsel, requested a short continuance to secure an essential witness who had been brought to its attention the previous evening. The trial court denied the request and insisted that the government proceed with the trial. The prosecutor was not allowed to nol-pros the cases and, when the government refused to proceed, the trial court swore-in appellee…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miller A. Dixon v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  2. United States v. FosterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. District of Columbia v. WeamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. District of Columbia v. DixonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. Smith v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1966

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. MacKDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Rufener v. ShaudIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Rufener v. ShaudIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. DiazIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 1972

1 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