District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 12/28/2000
Doret v. United States
Citations
- 765 A.2d 47
- 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 285
- 2000 WL 1877793
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the proper inquiry is whether “the trial court ask[ed], or permitted] the parties to pose, sufficient questions to determine whether seven jurors should have been struck for cause” (emphasis added)
- describing the trial court’s “responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court’s instructions”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Reid, Glickman, Ferren
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Thomas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2009-08-27· cited 45×
- Hammond v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2005-08-11· cited 37×
- Brown v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2004-01-08· cited 32×
- Reyes v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2007-08-16· cited 25×
- People v. ClemensSupreme Court of Colorado· 2017-09-11· cited 24×
- Hallums v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2004-02-12· cited 23×
- Hawes v. ChuaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2001-03-29· cited 22×
- Barrows v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2011-02-24· cited 20×
- Gilchrist v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2008-08-14· cited 12×
- Darnell Mason v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2017-09-28· cited 11×
- Ingram v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2005-10-14· cited 9×
- Lewis v. VossDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2001-04-12· cited 8×
- Mills v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2002-04-11· cited 4×
- Ingram v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2009-07-23· cited 3×
- Bryan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2003-11-26· cited 3×
- Bryan v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2003-09-04· cited 2×
- People v. ClemensColorado Court of Appeals· 2013-12-05
- Bruce v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2023-11-30
Cites
61 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1946-06-10· cited 7,845×
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 6,060×
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1973-02-21· cited 5,756×
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 5,425×
- California v. GreenSupreme Court· 1970-06-23· cited 3,363×
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,081×
- Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,040×
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Supreme Court· 1994-04-19· cited 1,420×
- JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TBSupreme Court· 1994-04-19· cited 1,335×
- Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1988-08-25· cited 1,289×
- Lilly v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1999-06-14· cited 1,183×
- Williamson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-27· cited 931×
- Rosales-Lopez v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1981-04-21· cited 771×
- United States v. Martinez-SalazarSupreme Court· 2000-01-19· cited 746×
- United States v. David T. DellingerSeventh Circuit· 1973-03-05· cited 354×
- Alfred R. Dyer v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, of California State Prison at San QuentinNinth Circuit· 1998-08-06· cited 319×
- Stilson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1919-11-10· cited 288×
- Connors v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1895-05-20· cited 257×
Other cases named Doret v. United States
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.