green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Robinson
(2×)
Annot. 276) (“Plaintiff may not argue a general issue not discussed in the opening portion of plaintiff’s closing argument, unless in rebuttal.”) The general rule, however, is not applied in a rigid fashion and “has evolved to give trial courts a modicum of discretion to allow a more substantial rebuttal which is not so narrowly tailored to the scope of defense counsel’s summation.” Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997, 1003 (Del. 1982); see State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 428 , 365 A.2d 1135 (“no rigid requirement that a prosecutor’s final summation must be limited solely to rebuttal o…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cronin v. Town of Amesbury
See Commissioners of Civil Serv. v. Municipal Court of Brighton, 369 Mass. 166, 173 , 338 N.E.2d 829, 833 (1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 125 , 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976), citing Kowal v. United States, 412 F.2d 867, 870 , 188 Ct.Cl. 631 (1969) (applying burden of proof of preponderance of evidence in removal proceeding based on charges that police officer’s conduct made him unfit for duty although he was acquitted of parallel criminal charges). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. United States
(2×)
This general rule, however, is not as ironclad as appellant contends; rather, it “has evolved to give trial courts a modicum of discretion to allow a more substantial rebuttal which is not so narrowly tailored to the scope of defense counsel’s summation.” Bailey v. State, 440 A.2d 997, 1003 (Del.1982) (citations omitted); accord, e.g., State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 428 , 365 A.2d 1135, 1142 (“There is no rigid requirement that a prosecutor’s final summation must be limited solely to rebuttal of matters raised in the defendant’s argument”), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 12…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joe Polk
(2×)
See United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 126 , 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gray
(2×)
Neb. 1980); see State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 424 , 365 A.2d 1135 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S. Ct. 126 , 50 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Alfonso
(2×)
See State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 426-27 , 365 A.2d 1135 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S. Ct. 126 , 50 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cimino
(2×)
We note that “ ‘[f]light, when unexplained, tends to prove a consciousness of guilt.’ ” State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 632 , 325 A.2d 263 (1973); see State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 432-33 , 365 A.2d 1135 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S. Ct. 126 , 50 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Bryant v. State
See Bailey v. Holley, (7th Cir.1976) 530 F.2d 169 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 125 , 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (interpretation of constitution; thirty year policy of Board of Parole).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bailey v. State
(2×)
See State v. Rosa, Conn.Supr., 170 Conn. 417 , 365 A.2d 1135 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 126 , 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); United States v. Lawson, 483 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1973); Moore v. United States, 344 F.2d 558 (D.C.Cir.1965); Marks v. State, Wis.Supr., 63 Wis.2d 769 , 218 N.W.2d 328 (1974); State v. Peterson, Mo.Supr., 423 S.W.2d 825 (1968); State v. Hale, Mo.Supr., 371 S.W.2d 249 (1963); Goldstein v. Fendelman, Mo.Supr. 336 S.W.2d 661 (1960); Votrain, supra; Reddell v. Norton, Ark.Supr., 225 Ark. 643 , 285 S.W.2d 328 (1955); Chandler, supra. In Peterson, supra, the Court held that…
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. James Francis Melvin
(4×)
See United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 723 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 126 , 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); Cf. United States v. Picariello, 568 F.2d 222, 224-27 (1st Cir. 1978); Haefeli v. Chernoff, 526 F.2d 1314, 1318-19 (1st Cir. 1975); United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harvey v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
Ed. 2d 473 ] (1986) . . . .” (Citation omitted.) Bae v. Peters, supra, 475 ; see also State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 424 , 365 A.2d 1135 (“state of mind which renders ... a statement involuntary and hence inadmissible is that induced by mistreatment, threats, promises, physical or mental abuse which deprives an otherwise rational mind of the exercise of its free will and powers of decision and discernment” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S. Ct. 126 , 50 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Murry v. State
See e. g., United States v. Taylor, (8th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 639 , cert. den. 429 U.S. 845 , 97 S.Ct. 127 , 50 L.Ed.2d 117 (photographs taken by bank camera were admissible in federal bank robbery prosecution, even though all witnesses to robbery had been locked in safe before camera was activated, where government witnesses testified as to manner in which film was installed, way in which camera was activated, and chain of possession of film after robbery).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Smith
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 75-6789.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1976.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.