Jordan v. United States
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 150
| D.C. | 2011Background
- David Rosenbaum was attacked on January 6, 2006, by Percy Jordan and his cousin Hamlin during a robbery in Northwest DC.
- Jordan struck Rosenbaum with a foot-long pipe; Hamlin took Rosenbaum's wallet and used his credit cards afterward.
- Rosenbaum died two days later from a head injury caused by the beating.
- Hamlin testified against Jordan under a plea agreement; Snowden testified about Jordan's statements post-robbery.
- Jordan's defense argued Hamlin, not Jordan, was the actual hitter, attacking credibility of Hamlin as a liar.
- The jury convicted Jordan of first-degree felony murder while armed, second-degree murder while armed, robbery, conspiracy, and credit card offenses; offenses merged for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in not answering jury’s causation question | Jordan argues the word 'cause' requires physical striking. | State contends causation is broader, involving substantial factor and foreseeability. | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether cross-examination of Hamlin was improperly restricted | Jordan claims inability to cross-examine about Maryland testimony prejudiced defense. | State argues discretion to limit cross-examination protects jury and avoids confusion. | No reversible error; cross-examination reasonably limited. |
| Whether closing argument improperly shifted the burden of proof | Jordan contends prosecutor commented on defendant’s silence and shifted burden. | State asserts remarks emphasized uncontradicted evidence and did not comment on silence. | No reversible error; comments did not shift burden. |
| Whether the alias 'Master P' should have been struck from the indictment | Jordan argues alias was inflammatory and prejudicial. | State contends alias was minimally referenced and not prejudicial. | No error; alias properly left in indicted charges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. United States, 999 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2010) (juror questions about legal terms; court may reinstruct to clarify law without directing verdict)
- Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363 (D.C. 2007) (refusal to define 'assault' in self-defense instruction reversed)
- Graham v. United States, 703 A.2d 825 (D.C. 1997) (court sustained discretion not to reinstruct to avoid dictating verdict)
- Davis v. United States, 510 A.2d 1051 (D.C. 1986) (trial court reinstruction discretion recognized)
- Jackson v. United States, 623 A.2d 571 (D.C. 1993) (Fifth Amendment prohibits prosecutorial comment on silence)
- Gray v. United States, 745 A.2d 274 (D.C. 2000) (balance probative value against risk of jury confusion in limiting cross-examination)