green
Positive treatment
7.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. James E.
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 309 , 772 A.2d 1107 (‘‘[w]hen a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument is in direct response to matters raised by defense counsel, the defendant has no grounds for com- plaint’’), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mucha
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 309 , 772 A.2d 1107 (“[w]hen a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument is in direct response to matters raised by defense counsel, the defendant has no grounds for complaint” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Francione
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 309 , 772 A.2d 1107 (“[w]hen a prosecutor’s allegedly improper argument is in direct response to matters raised by defense counsel, the defendant has no grounds for complaint” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gary
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 312 , 772 A.2d 1107 (declining to review claims of prosecutorial impropriety where no analysis or authority presented to support claims), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ross v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF WESTPORT
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 312-13 , 772 A.2d 1107 (failure to discuss application of relevant law to facts amounts to inadequate brief for purposes of appellate review), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Daly
Such speculation is not sufficient to challenge the trial court’s factual finding that “[the defendant] was present during the entering of the nolle”; see State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 311-12 , 772 A.2d 1107 (nonreviewability of claim when analysis and authority lacking), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brooks v. State
See Jenkins , supra. As the Illinois Supreme Court stated in People v. Barrow , 195 Ill.2d 506 , 749 N.E.2d 892 , 255 Ill.Dec. 410 (2001), cert. denied, Barrow v. Wells , 534 U.S. 1067 , 122 S.Ct. 669 , 151 L.Ed.2d 583 (2001): "The defendant contends that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose to the defense all the evidence described above, and that a new trial is therefore warranted.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Crocker
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 312 , 772 A.2d 1107 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hooper v. Gibson
(2×)
See Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10th Cir.2001) cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S.Ct. 670 , 151 L.Ed.2d 584 (2001) (Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel as result of counsel's failure to impeach witness where there was overwhelming evidence against defendant, independent of witness' testimony).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Pereira
See State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 312-13 , 772 A.2d 1107 (no authority citation or analysis), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lishan Wang
(2×)
This court previously has held that, under Harper and Riggins , the state must demonstrate, "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, [that] involuntary medication of the defendant will render him competent to stand trial...." (Footnotes omitted.) State v. Garcia, supra, 233 Conn. at 84 -85 , 658 A.2d 947 ; see also United States v. Weston, 134 F.Supp.2d 115 , 132 (D.D.C.) (applying Harper and Riggins and concluding that, "[a]lthough ... it is not certain that the medication will restore [the defendant's] competency, the [c]ourt credits the ... testimony of the mental health experts that t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Beckerman
The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 634-35 , 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005); see also State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 312-13 , 772 A.2d 1107 (failure to discuss application of relevant law to facts amounts to inadequate brief for purposes of appellate review), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Santiago
It is well settled that, “in addressing the jury, [c]ounsel must be allowed a generous latitude in argument, as the limits of legitimate argument and fair comment cannot be determined precisely by rule and line, and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 746 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); see also State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 309-10 , 772 A.2d 1107 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. James G.
The burden of proving a constitutional violation as a result of prosecutorial misconduct rests with the defendant; see, e.g., State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 298 , 772 A.2d 1107 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rizzo
Because he does not claim that the state constitution provides greater protection in this regard than does the federal constitution, and because he has not presented a separate and adequate analysis under the state constitution; see, e.g., State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291 , 297 n.7, 772 A.2d 1107 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1068 , 122 S. Ct. 670 , 151 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Second Hand Tunes v. City of Chicago
(2×)
See, e.g., U.S. v. Weston, 255 F.3d 873, 880-81 (D.C.Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 670 , 151 L.Ed.2d 583 (2001), and cases cited therein.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allen
v.
Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
v.
Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
No. 01-6695.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 10, 2001.
Cited by 5 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.