Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1917–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Herman Tyrone Harrisgreen1 sentence2020To be sure, testimony from Trooper Diaz concerning Brian’s prior out-of- court identification would have eliminated any purported prejudice created by the 107 ABA Standard Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function §5.7(d). 108 United States v. Harris, 542 F.2d 1283, 1307 (7th Cir. 1976). 109 We note that Saavedra, in his opening brief on appeal, claims that his defense counsel disputed the existence of the § 3507 statement during the side bar conference. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2024At trial, Officer Gledhill testified that Watson told her that “he was approached by [Howard] in the hallway of the bathroom. [Howard] lunged at him a few times and stated he was going to beat the f*ck out of him, and then the defendant said that due to his safety, he struck [Howard] in the face.” Id. at B9 (Gledhill Test. at 33:15–19). 27 Id. at B54 (Darrin Christy Testimony [hereinafter “Christy Test. at _”] at 137:9–22). 6 “skinny.”28 When Christy arrived, Davis told him to walk to the other side of the bar with Watson. 2024At trial, Officer Gledhill testified that Watson told her that “he was approached by [Howard] in the hallway of the bathroom. [Howard] lunged at him a few times and stated he was going to beat the f*ck out of him, and then the defendant said that due to his safety, he struck [Howard] in the face.” Id. at B9 (Gledhill Test. at 33:15–19). 27 Id. at B54 (Darrin Christy Testimony [hereinafter “Christy Test. at _”] at 137:9–22). 6 “skinny.”28 When Christy arrived, Davis told him to walk to the other side of the bar with Watson. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Judicial Watch, Inc. University of Delaware
green
1 sentence2024The side with the burden loses; the side with the presumption of Del., 267 A.3d 996 , 1008 (Del. 2021) (rejecting request for reversal based on misallocation of burden of proof). 31 For a concrete example of the latter scenario, assume three equally likely scenarios. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence2020Aff. at 6 (“The prejudice of this error is that Cooper’s testimony may have been improperly bolstered by the video statement.”). 65 Id. 6° See source cited supra note 17. 7 See D.R.E. 801(d)(1) (2014) (Pursuant to then-extant D.R.E. 801(d)(1), a witness’ prior statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at “the trial or hearing and is subject to cross- 18 remarks during his opening statement and at a side bar before Cooper took the stand, when he preemptively implied that Cooper had an improper motive.™ But assuming, arguendo, Trial Counsel erred by not objecting to the 3507 Statement | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1987Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148 , 12 S.Ct. 171 , 35 L.Ed. 96 (1891) involved the possibility of juror bias caused by a newspaper story describing a letter written by defense counsel denying a charge by a third party that one of the jurors was acquainted with the defendant. 1987Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148 , 12 S.Ct. 171 , 35 L.Ed. 96 (1891) involved the possibility of juror bias caused by a newspaper story describing a letter written by defense counsel denying a charge by a third party that one of the jurors was acquainted with the defendant. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Tatem v. Gilpin
green
1 sentence1917In Tatem v. Gilpin et al., 1 Del. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.