In the Matter of Alexander
| Decision Date | 12 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3761 Orig.,3761 Orig. |
| Citation | 259 A.2d 592 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Harry T. ALEXANDER, Judge, District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, Don Morrow, Intervenor. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Hubert B. Pair, Acting Corp. Counsel, and Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for petitioner.
Ralph J. Temple, Washington, D. C., with whom Robert H. Kapp, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and KELLY and FICKLING, Associate Judges.
The facts of this case are fully set forth in our previous opinion in In re Alexander, D.C.App., 243 A.2d 901 (1968). An appeal from our decision was allowed by the United States Court of Appeals, and that court reversed and remanded to us for further proceedings. Morrow v. District of Columbia, and In the Matter of Alexander, D.C.Cir., 417 F.2d 728 (1969). All parties have been given the opportunity of filing briefs and presenting oral argument on the remand.
The holding of the United States Court of Appeals, so far as pertinent here, was "that the Court of General Sessions does have the power to issue an order regarding the arrest record in a criminal case which has been before the court." (417 F.2d at 741.) The court did not hold that the trial court's order was either "appropriate or proper in scope" but left that determination to this court. (417 F.2d at 741.). The court, in summary, held that this court would (417 F.2d at 743.)
The Duncan Report rules above referred to, and to which we will hereafter refer, are set out in full in the appendix to the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals.
It is our conclusion that the Duncan Report rules, as adopted by the District of Columbia and now in force, furnish reasonable and adequate protection to citizens against the misuse of arrest records, and no further order is required for that purpose except in rare cases presenting such unusual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Benlizar
...States v. Dooley, 364 F.Supp. 75, 78 (E.D. Pa.1973); United States v. Rosen, 343 F.Supp. 804, 809 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Matter of Alexander, 259 A.2d 592, 593 (D.C.App. 1969). In cases in which special circumstances are presented such as the special injury to the defendant along with the reprehen......
-
Doe v. Webster
...States v. Dooley, 364 F.Supp. 75, 78-79 (E.D.Pa.1973); United States v. Rosen, supra note 12, 343 F.Supp. at 809; Matter of Alexander, 259 A.2d 592, 593 (D.C.App.1969).18 Many states likewise require the collection and transmission of criminal justice data to state and federal law enforceme......
-
Utz v. Cullinane
...of Commissioners during the prior century would be abolished, and Morrow v. District of Columbia, supra note 9, and In re Alexander, 259 A.2d 592, 593 (D.C.C.A.1969) (Duncan Report rules are "now in force"), both of which were decided after the Reorganization Plan's effective date, clearly ......
-
Sullivan v. Murphy
...plaintiff sufficient relief, absent "unusual facts ;" and it ordered the Superior Court to vacate its expungement order. In re Alexander, 259 A.2d 592 (1969). The Morrow case dates from the time, prior to the Court Reorganization Act of 1970, when this court was charged with responsibility ......