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.
14 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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. Orellanagreen2 sentences2021Indeed . . . a prosecutor who uses the phrase smoke and mirrors implie[s] that the defen- dant’s attorney intended to deceive and thereby impugn[s] the integrity of the defendant’s attorney.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Albino, supra, 312 Conn. 777–78. ‘‘There is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 101 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). 2021Indeed . . . a prosecutor who uses the phrase smoke and mirrors implie[s] that the defen- dant’s attorney intended to deceive and thereby impugn[s] the integrity of the defendant’s attorney.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Albino, supra, 312 Conn. 777–78. ‘‘There is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 101 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Orellanagreen2 sentences2021Indeed . . . a prosecutor who uses the phrase smoke and mirrors implie[s] that the defen- dant’s attorney intended to deceive and thereby impugn[s] the integrity of the defendant’s attorney.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Albino, supra, 312 Conn. 777–78. ‘‘There is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 101 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). 2021Indeed . . . a prosecutor who uses the phrase smoke and mirrors implie[s] that the defen- dant’s attorney intended to deceive and thereby impugn[s] the integrity of the defendant’s attorney.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Albino, supra, 312 Conn. 777–78. ‘‘There is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71, 101 , 872 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Outinggreen2 sentences2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a the- ory of defense.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 , 82–83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S. Ct. 1479 , 179 L. 2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a the- ory of defense.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 , 82–83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S. Ct. 1479 , 179 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Salamongreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 558 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008) (‘‘[t]here is a dis- tinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense’’ [internal quotation marks omit- ted]). 2014See, e.g., State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 558 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008) (‘‘[t]here is a dis- tinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense’’ [internal quotation marks omit- ted]). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Handley v. Chase Bank USA N.A.
green
2 sentences2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a the- ory of defense.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 , 82–83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S. Ct. 1479 , 179 L. 2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing , 298 Conn. 34 , 82-83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S.Ct. 1479 , 179 L.Ed.2d 316 (2011). | 3 | 2012–2017 |
Blount v. California
green
2 sentences2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a the- ory of defense.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 , 82–83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S. Ct. 1479 , 179 L. 2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing , 298 Conn. 34 , 82-83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S.Ct. 1479 , 179 L.Ed.2d 316 (2011). | 3 | 2012–2017 |
Marion v. Peninsula Bank
green
2 sentences2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a the- ory of defense.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 , 82–83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S. Ct. 1479 , 179 L. 2017There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outing , 298 Conn. 34 , 82-83, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225 , 131 S.Ct. 1479 , 179 L.Ed.2d 316 (2011). | 3 | 2012–2017 |
State v. James
green
2 sentences2025The prosecutor may ‘‘forcefully criticize a defense the- ory on the permissible bases of the evidence and the common sense of the [jurors] . . . .’’ State v. James, 141 Conn. App. 124, 150 , 60 A.3d 1011 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 932 , 64 A.3d 331 (2013). 2025The prosecutor may ‘‘forcefully criticize a defense the- ory on the permissible bases of the evidence and the common sense of the [jurors] . . . .’’ State v. James, 141 Conn. App. 124, 150 , 60 A.3d 1011 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 932 , 64 A.3d 331 (2013). | 2 | 2015–2025 |
State v. Dabate
green
1 sentence2025There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dabate, 351 Conn. 428 , 454 n.16, 331 A.3d 1159 (2025). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Maner
green
2 sentences2022Furthermore, [t]here is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maner, 147 Conn. App. 761, 789 , 83 A.3d 1182 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 935 , 88 A.3d 550 (2014). 2022Furthermore, [t]here is a distinction between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Maner, 147 Conn. App. 761, 789 , 83 A.3d 1182 , cert. denied, 311 Conn. 935 , 88 A.3d 550 (2014). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Nixon
green
1 sentence2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Nixon
green
2 sentences2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. 2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hernandez
neutral
1 sentence2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. 2016In particular, [i]t is improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury, explicitly or implicitly, that defense counsel is employing standard tactics used in all trials, because such an argument relies on facts not in evidence and has no bearing on the issue before the jury, namely, the guilt or innocence of the defendant.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 566 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). ‘‘There is a distinction [however] between argument that disparages the integrity or role of defense counsel and argument that disparages a theory of defense.’’ State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Warholic
green
2 sentences2010Moreover, not every use of rhetorical language is improper." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 558 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. at 363 , 897 A.2d 569 . 2010Moreover, not every use of rhetorical language is improper." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 558 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. at 363 , 897 A.2d 569 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). 2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). 2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). 2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Biller Associates v. Peterken
green
1 sentence2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Santa
green
1 sentence2005State v. Jenkins, 70 Conn. App. 515, 535-38 , 800 A.2d 1200 (holding that challenged argument fell within bounds of proper commentary on defendant’s theory of defense), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 927 , 806 A.2d 1062 (2002); State v. Perry, 58 Conn. App. 65, 71-72 , 751 A.2d 843 (same), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 914 , 759 A.2d 508 (2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.