McIntosh v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

McIntosh v. District of Columbia

29 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 23, 2002

DocketNo. 00-7137

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. App'x 8 (McIntosh v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McIntosh v. District of Columbia, 29 F. App'x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record, briefs, and oral argument of the parties. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court is affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum and order of April 25, 1997; memorandum and order of February 6,1998; memorandum opinion of February 26, 1999; and memorandum accompanying final judgment of April 26, 2000. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence about the potential effects of the drug PCP, where that evidence was relevant. See Fed. R.Evid. 401. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in permitting counsel to rely on this evidence at closing argument. Appellant also alludes to an issue involving the psychotherapist-patient privilege; however, his treatment lacks sufficient clarity to warrant consideration. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its management of pretrial discovery.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was considered on the record, briefs, and oral argument of the parties. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court is affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum and order of April 25, 1997; memorandum and order of February 6,1998; memorandum opinion of February 26, 1999; and memorandum accompanying final judgment of April 26, 2000. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence about the potential effects of the drug PCP, where that evidence was relevant. See Fed. R.Evid. 401. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in permitting counsel to rely on this evidence at closing argument. Appellant also alludes to an issue involving the psychotherapist-patient privilege; however, his treatment lacks sufficient clarity to warrant consideration. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its management of pretrial discovery.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-2002.