United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Darryl Joseph Alexander, Defendant-appellant, 36 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 36 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1994) May 27, 1994

Before: WALD, SILBERMAN, RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.


This cause came to be heard on appeal of the defendant from the judgment of the district court, and it was briefed and argued by counsel. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36(b).

Appellant challenges the admission of Officer David Stroud's expert testimony and the prosecutor's closing remarks. Upon reviewing the record, we find that in light of direct witness testimony of the defendant's distribution of the drugs, any resulting issue concerning the scope of Officer Stroud's testimony, even assuming it was properly raised below, does not warrant reversal in this case. See United States v. Williams, 980 F.2d 1463, 1465-66 & n. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The prosecutor's closing remarks do not warrant reversal of the conviction either. See United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 894-98 (D.C. Cir.), modified in part on other grounds, 920 F.2d 940 (1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 941 (1991).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, by the Court, that in No. 92-3278, the judgment is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely-filed petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 41(a).

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.