Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Citation
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2002-11-27
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
Full Text
743 chars. The Supreme Court held in Sullivan that a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction cannot be harmless error. As Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, "to hypothesize a guilty verdict that was never in fact rendered [because reasonable doubt was not defined with constitutional adequacy]' — no matter how inescapable the findings to support that verdict might be — would violate the jury trial guarantee.” 508 U.S. at 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078. There is at least a superficial similarity between Sullivan and the present case, for here, too, the trier of fact never found that the landlord had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. Sullivan, however, implicated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; this case does not.