Nathan Cayton

This case involved an orthopedic surgeon who sued an attorney for failing to honor a signed assignment agreement in which the attorney promised to withhold sufficient funds from any settlement obtained for his client (a patient treated after a car accident) to pay the doctor's outstanding medical bills. The trial court entered judgment for the doctor in the amount of $542.50, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the attorney's referral of the case to another lawyer did not relieve him of liability under the agreement absent a novation accepted by the doctor, and that the attorney's subsequent written letter acknowledging the debt was sufficient to remove any statute of limitations bar under D.C. law.

procedure

The case concerned a former District of Columbia government employee who resigned in February 1970, moved to Illinois with her husband, and filed an interstate claim for unemployment benefits against the DC Unemployment Compensation Board. A claims deputy and later an appeals examiner found her ineligible because she had not shown she was available for work, and the Board affirmed that determination in June 1970. On petition for review, the court held that the administrative record was inadequate for meaningful judicial review because of an incomplete hearing transcript, illegible notes on forms, and the Board's failure to follow statutory procedures under the DC Administrative Procedures Act, including adopting specific findings of fact and issuing a proposed decision before its final order. The court therefore remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to prepare and certify proper findings and conclusions while retaining jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a conviction for larceny after trust, focusing on the trial court's admission of testimony from other government witnesses about similar dealings with the defendant and the instructions given to the jury about the limited purpose of that evidence. After the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed an earlier reversal by this court and upheld the admissibility of the evidence, the case was remanded to consider whether the jury instructions created prejudicial error. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had not objected to the instructions at trial as required by court rules, that the instructions did not amount to plain prejudicial error, and that the lack of objection may have been a deliberate strategic choice by counsel to avoid emphasizing the evidence further.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two appellants convicted under D.C. Code § 22-2001(a) for knowingly exhibiting the film "Threes, Menage a Trois" in a District of Columbia theater, resulting in fines, jail sentences, and condemnation of the film. The appellants challenged the convictions on grounds that the government failed to prove the film was obscene under the Roth/Memoirs test (prurient interest, affront to national community standards, and lack of redeeming social value), that scienter was not established, and that the statute was unconstitutional. The court reviewed the film's content, conflicting expert testimony, and precedents including Redrup v. New York and Schackman v. California (reversing similar convictions), concluding that the material was not obscene when judged by national standards and that recent Supreme Court decisions had adopted a more permissive approach to such borderline erotic films. The convictions were reversed.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved a minor appellant who was petitioned into D.C. Juvenile Court on allegations of assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery arising from an incident where a group of youths attacked the occupants of a car. The trial court found that the specific allegations were not proved but held the appellant within the court's jurisdiction as an accessory to simple assault based on his participation in the group attack. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the evidence sufficiently showed the appellant acted in concert with others by a preponderance of the evidence, that this civil-like standard (rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt) applies to establishing jurisdictional facts in juvenile proceedings, and that the petition provided constitutionally adequate notice of the nature of the allegations despite the variance between the charges and the finding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a juvenile appellant charged in Juvenile Court with assaulting a police officer while performing official duties, in violation of D.C. Code 22-505(a). A jury found the appellant involved, resulting in an indeterminate period of probation. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Relying on its prior decision in In the Matter of Ellis, the court held that the applicable standard in juvenile proceedings for determining involvement is proof by a preponderance of the evidence and affirmed the disposition.

criminal lawprocedure