Hilton v. United States

4 Citing cases

  1. Young v. United States

    305 A.3d 402 (D.C. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    We review mixed questions of law and fact under our usual deferential standard of review for factual findings … and [apply] de novo review to the ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts." Hilton v. United States, 250 A.3d 1061, 1068 (D.C. 2021) (alterations in original) (citations, italics, and internal quotation marks omitted). "This court is, bound by the trial court’s findings on whether identification procedures were impermissibly suggestive and whether an identification was reliable if they are supported by the evidence and in accordance with the law."

  2. United States v. Moore

    590 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D.D.C. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    As such, despite the "special problems presented by ‘alternative perpetrator’ evidence," McVeigh, 153 F.3d at 1191 (citations omitted), the balancing required in such cases is based on a "totality of the circumstances" and is thus "strongly rooted in the facts of each individual case." Hilton v. United States, 250 A.3d 1061, 1072 (D.C. 2021) (quoting Bruce v. United States, 820 A.2d 540, 544–45 (D.C. 2003) ); see also Cabrerra, 1996 WL 135718, at *2 (finding "admission of evidence inculpating a third party" to be "highly fact-dependent"). B. Application

  3. Geter v. United States

    306 A.3d 126 (D.C. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    In cases following Sanders, we have upheld the requirement that any lay opinion testimony identifying a witness in video footage or a photograph must be based on that witnesses’ intimate knowledge of the person being identified. See, e.g., Hilton v. United States, 250 A.3d 1061, 1069-71 (D.C. 2021) (individuals who made identification from video footage included police officers who had known the defendant for seven or eight years and had had recent contact with him, and another witness who had known the defendant since elementary school); Young v. United States, 111 A.3d 13, 14-16 (D.C. 2015) (individual who made identification from video footage had been a social worker assigned to defendant’s family two years prior to the shooting, had worked intensely with them for months, and had continued to see the defendant thereafter, albeit less frequently); Vaughn v. United. States, 93 A.3d 1237, 1271 (D.C. 2014) (although noting it was a "close call" under Sanders, upholding lay testimony from corrections officers who "over a period of months, had daily interaction with [the defendants] throughout the routine functions of their jobs").In addition, the testimony must also be "helpful to the factfinder in the determination of a fact in issue."

  4. C.R. Calderon Constr. v. Grunley Constr. Co.

    257 A.3d 1046 (D.C. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "We review mixed questions of law and fact under our usual deferential standard of review for factual findings and apply de novo review to the ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts." Hilton v. United States , 250 A.3d 1061, 1068 (D.C. 2021) (cleaned up) (citing Caison v. Project Support Servs., Inc. , 99 A.3d 243, 248 (D.C. 2014) ). "We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo."