Workman v. U.S.

3 Citing cases

  1. Tann v. United States

    127 A.3d 400 (D.C. 2015)   Cited 27 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was “crucial ... that the trial judge actually observed Tann's outburst and viewed its effect (or lack thereof) on the jury when determining the correct course of action”

    Consequentially, in addition to analyzing the evidentiary error under the Chapman standard for harmlessness, we must simultaneously look to see whether the joinder of Tann and Arnette with Cooper resulted in “the most compelling prejudice” that would constitute reversible error. Workman v. United States, 15 A.3d 264, 266 (D.C.2011) (quoting Bailey v. United States, 10 A.3d 637, 642 (D.C.2010)).

  2. Vines v. United States

    70 A.3d 1170 (D.C. 2013)   Cited 13 times
    Indicating that recklessness can suffice to support conviction for assault

    Rule 14 permits the trial court to sever otherwise properly joined offenses to avoid prejudice, as “justice requires.” Workman v. United States, 15 A.3d 264, 266 (D.C.2011). To justify severance, a defendant must show “the most compelling prejudice,” from which the trial court will be unable to protect if the offenses are tried together.

  3. Vines v. United States

    No. 11-CF-843 (D.C. Jul. 11, 2013)   2 Legal Analyses

    Rule 14 permits the trial court to sever otherwise properly joined offenses to avoid prejudice, as "justice requires." Workman v. United States, 15 A.3d 264, 266 (D.C. 2011). To justify severance, a defendant must show "the most compelling prejudice," from which the trial court will be unable to protect if the offenses are tried together.