Court Opinion

ID: 9750572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:07:49.268615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:12.810066
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in part I of Judge Nebeker’s concurring opinion. In general, I agree with the position of the trial judge in the Cole case on the issue of severability. However, I also agree with Judge Nebeker that Congress has decided the issue for us by enacting, only a few days before we heard argument in these cases, an express sever-ability provision.1 Since our decision is governed by this new statute, I see no need to discuss the point further, except to endorse what Judge Nebeker has already said.
On the question of corroboration, I agree with the majority that the time has come to abolish the corroboration requirement entirely. Since the issue is properly before us in this case, I join in part VII(B)(1) of the majority opinion. I also join in part *860VII(A), which holds that Cole’s sentencing argument is totally without merit.
As for the jury selection issue raised by appellant Gary, I believe that the Robinson and Boone cases2 were wrongly decided. I recognize, however, that they are binding precedents, and thus I concur in the majority’s holding that the trial court erred, but that its error was harmless.

. In Pub.L. No. 98-473, § 131(1), 98 Stat. 1975 (1984), Congress added a new section dealing with severability to the District of Columbia Self-Government Act, which until then had contained nothing on the issue of severability. The new provision, which became section 762 of the original Act, went into effect on October 12, 1984. It appears in the 1985 Supplement to volume 1 of the District of Columbia Code, at page 28.

. Robinson v. United States, 448 A.2d 853 (D.C.1982), rehearing en banc denied, 456 A.2d 848 (1983); Boone v. United States, 483 A.2d 1135 (D.C.1984) (en banc).