DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARION S. BARRY, JR., APPELLEE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT, V. LESTER J. MCKINNIE, APPELLEE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT, V. DONALD E. BROWN, APPELLEE; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLANT, V. WESLEY C. BRYANT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the certified question because the underlying dismissal was still in effect on independent grounds, rendering the question moot.
Appellees were charged with disorderly conduct and moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion on several grounds, including prosecutorial ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Moot Question cases and more on FLexlaw
and the question of prosecutorial authority was certified to this court.3 Thus, while there was more than one ground for granting the dismissal,4 vacation of the dismissal was as to one ground only. As a consequence, the dismissal is still in effect on independent grounds and has operated to terminate the charges against these appellees.
The Constitution limits the exercise of federal judicial power to cases and controversies. Accordingly, it is a frequently stated proposition that “a federal court is without power to decide moot questions or to give advisory opinions which cannot affect the rights of the litigants before it. United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 115-116 [40 S.Ct. 448, 64 L.Ed. 808], and cases cited; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-Fahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 475-477 [36 S.Ct. 212, 60 L.Ed. 387].” St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943). Since any action we might take on the certified question cannot alter dismissal of the charges by the court below, the certificate is dismissed.
Dismissed.
. They were: failure to allege an offense, lack of particularity, failure to allege the violation of a specific statute, lack of jurisdiction (on the part of the prosecutor and on the part of the District of Columbia branch of the court), inconsistency of the allegations, and unconstitutionality —for vagueness — of D.C.Code § 22-1107 (1967).
. Order of September 20, 1967, Criminal Numbers DC 5297-67, DC 7789-67, DC 7790-67, DC 7791-67.
. D.C.Code § 23-102 (1967) provides for certification whenever such a question is raised by the trial judge or by the prosecutor. . In certifying the question to this court, the General Sessions Court noted that lack of jurisdiction was one ground, “inter alia,” for its having granted the dismissal. Certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Criminal Numbers DC 5297-67, DC 7789-67, DC 7790-67, DC 7791-67, September 25, 1967, p. 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renard G. Davis v. Ichord, 442 F.2d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- ST. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1943)
- United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Alaska S.S. Co., 253 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1920)
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)