Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. David Roach, 96-3119 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 96-3119 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 19, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 136 F.3d 794 329 U.S.App.D.C. 54 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David ROACH, Appellant. No. 96-3119. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Feb. 19, 1998. Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD and TATEL, Circuit Judges. ORDER PER CURIAM. 1 On April 1, 1997, this court issued an opinion upholding the conviction of appellant David Roach under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (1994). United States v. Roach, 108 F.3d 1477 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S. Ct. 446 , 139 L. Ed. 2
More

136 F.3d 794

329 U.S.App.D.C. 54

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
David ROACH, Appellant.

No. 96-3119.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1998.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WALD and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

On April 1, 1997, this court issued an opinion upholding the conviction of appellant David Roach under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (1994). United States v. Roach, 108 F.3d 1477 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S. Ct. 446, 139 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1997). In the opinion, we rejected Roach's argument that he was denied a jury trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 1484. On December 19, 1997, in a case involving another employee of the Department of Corrections, Dr. Anthony Rapone, who was also convicted of criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), another panel of this court held that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h (1994) ("In any proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of [the Civil Rights Act of 1964], the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial by jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in criminal cases."). United States v. Rapone, 131 F.3d 188, 195-97 (D.C.Cir.1997).

2

Although Roach did not argue before us that he had a statutory right to a jury trial, we believe that in light of this court's decision in Rapone, Roach should receive a jury trial under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(h). Because we would not have reached the issue had we originally granted Roach a jury trial under this statute, we vacate the portion of our previous decision in Roach dealing with Roach's constitutional right to a jury trial. Roach, 108 F.3d at 1484. We also vacate those portions of the opinion addressing the sufficiency of the evidence against Roach, id. at 1481-82, and Roach's sentencing, id. at 1484-95. All other portions of the opinion shall remain unaffected by this order.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer