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.
15 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hodgesongreen2 sentences2017State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1974) and decisions there cited. 1979At the general meeting [of the membership of the Institute] also, there was strong opposition to allowing judges to comment on the facts." (Italics ours.) The no-judge-comment rule is designed to safeguard the role of the jury as the sole judge of the facts on the issue of guilt or innocence. [1] State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1974) and decisions there cited. | 3 | 13 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2017In State v. Williams, 375 So.2d 1379 (La.1979), where the trial court extensively questioned a witness, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the no-judge-comment rule and reversed the conviction on the ground that the questioning constituted improper comments on the evidence: The no-judge-comment rule is designed to safeguard the role of the jury as the sole judge of the facts on the issue of guilt or innocence. 2013In State v. Williams, 375 So.2d 1379 (La.1979), where the trial court extensively questioned a witness, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the no-judge-comment rule and reversed the conviction on the ground that the questioning constituted improper comments on the evidence: The no-judge-comment rule is designed to safeguard the role of the jury as the sole judge of the facts on the issue of guilt or innocence. | 3 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nicholas
green
1 sentence2006State v. Nicholas, 359 So.2d 965 (La.1978). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.