Darab v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
623 A.2d 127 (1993)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In July 1983, the Islamic Center (Center) in Washington, D.C., was hosting a worship service to mark the end of Ramadan. The Center was also reopening after a period of renovations and was therefore expecting an unusually large number of attendees. Dr. Samuel Hamoud, who was responsible for security at the Center, hired private security officers to facilitate the event. The service was to be led by the newly appointed imam, Dr. Adil Al-Aseer. Shortly after the service began, the Center’s prior imam, Mohammed Asi, and his followers (defendants) initiated a violent confrontation in the Center and physically attacked Al-Aseer and Hamoud. At the time of the incident, Hamoud and a leader of the private security team instructed everyone in the Center to leave peacefully or face arrest by the police. The defendants did not leave and were charged and convicted of unlawful entry under D.C. Code § 22-3102. The defendants appealed on the grounds that: (1) they did not hear the instructions to leave the Center, or (2) they believed they were entitled to remain in the Center. The belief of the right to remain was based on an opinion Asi received from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt regarding the inability of persons to own a mosque or deny entry of other Muslims onto mosque property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
