Javier Card, Jerome Edwards, Antoine W. Rice v. United States (eb banc granted 4/29/02) (panel opinion vacated by order of 12/22/04)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
District of Columbia
Court of Appeals
No. 94-CF-754
JAVIER CARD,
Appellant,
F7682-91
Appellant,
F4437-92
Appellant,
F6601-92
No. 94-CF-801
JEROME EDWARDS, JR.,
No. 94-CF-1147
ANTOINE W. RICE,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Appellee.
BEFORE: Wagner, Chief Judge; *Terry, *Steadman, Schwelb, Farrell, *Ruiz, Reid,
Glickman, and Washington, Associate Judges.
AMENDED ORDER
(Filed April 29th, 2002)
On consideration of the petitions of each appellant for rehearing or rehearing en
banc, appellee's consolidated opposition thereto, appellant's (Card’s) motion for leave to
file the lodged reply brief in support of petition, and the letter of counsel for appellant
(Rice) pursuant to D.C. App. R. 28 (k), it is
ORDERED that the motion of appellant (Card) for leave to file the lodged reply
brief is granted and the Clerk is directed to file the lodged reply brief of appellant (Card)
in support of petition. It is
FURTHER ORDERED by the merits division* that the petitions for rehearing are
denied1; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to grant
the petitions for rehearing en banc, it is
Appellant Edwards asserts that the merits division’s opinion did not specifically
address his argument that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of
Detective Bradley, who testified about Edwards’s confession. The limitation related to
an exculpatory statement Edwards had given months before to another person. At best
the prior statement, if admissible at all, was of questionable relevance, and any error in
the limitation was harmless.
1
FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for rehearing en banc are granted.
Rehearing en banc is limited to the issues arising under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79
(1986), including whether those issues were preserved in the trial court and the applicable
standard of appellate review. Although the court does not limit the arguments the parties
may present on these issues, the parties shall, in light of the facts and circumstances of
the case, address the application of Batson to allegations of both race-based and religionbased exercise of the right of peremptory challenge. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellants are encouraged to agree upon and file a
single brief addressing these issues. The brief or briefs of appellants shall be filed on or
before May 31, 2002; the responsive brief of appellee shall be filed no later than July 1,
2002. Appellants may reply on or before July 22, 2002. Each party shall file ten copies
of its briefs. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall schedule these matters for argument
before the court sitting en banc as soon as the calendar permits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any requests for extension of time will be looked
upon with disfavor and will be granted only upon a showing of good cause.
PER CURIAM
Judge Ruiz would grant the petitions for rehearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
