11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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. Hughesgreen2 sentences2018Hughes , 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 59, 969 P.2d at 1198 . 2018Hughes , 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 59, 969 P.2d at 1198 . | 1 | 3 |
cluster 736946green2 sentences2017Compare State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 86, ¶ 59 (1998) ("Jury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is . . . improper.") with United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[c]riticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument"). 2014See State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 86, ¶ 59 , 969 P.2d 1184, 1198 (1998) ("Jury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is . . . improper."); United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Criticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument"). ¶14 Romero asserts the prosecutor improperly argued that defense counsel "tried to make up" benefits a witness received for her testimony, argued outside the record, and would call a witness who could 5 STATE v. ROMERO Decision of the Court not remember every minor detail a liar | 1 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Easton Courtney Murraygreen1 sentence2022See Murray, 250 Ariz. at 548 ¶ 13. ¶84 Finally, Thompson asserts in conclusory fashion that the statements here were also improper because they misstated the law, shifted the burden of proof, impugned the integrity of the defense, improperly argued inferences and conclusions during closing, vouched for the victims, vouched by implying facts not in evidence, and appealed to the jurors’ fears. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinezgreen1 sentence2021To succeed on a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must 2 “When reviewing the conduct of prosecutors in the context of ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ claims, courts should differentiate between ‘error,’ which may not necessarily imply a concurrent ethical rules violation, and ‘misconduct,’ which may suggest an ethical violation.” Matter of Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 470, ¶ 47 (2020). 4 STATE v. TUCKER Decision of the Court demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Johnson, 247 Ari | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnsongreen1 sentence2021To succeed on a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must 2 “When reviewing the conduct of prosecutors in the context of ‘prosecutorial misconduct’ claims, courts should differentiate between ‘error,’ which may not necessarily imply a concurrent ethical rules violation, and ‘misconduct,’ which may suggest an ethical violation.” Matter of Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 470, ¶ 47 (2020). 4 STATE v. TUCKER Decision of the Court demonstrate that the prosecutor’s misconduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Johnson, 247 Ari | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Levinegreen2 sentences2001In re Levine, 174 Ariz. 146, 170 , 847 P.2d 1093, 1117 (1993). 2001In re Levine, 174 Ariz. 146, 170 , 847 P.2d 1093, 1117 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Hoovergreen2 sentences1993In re Hoover, 161 Ariz. 529, 534 , 779 P.2d 1268, 1273 (1989). 1993In re Hoover, 161 Ariz. 529, 534 , 779 P.2d 1268, 1273 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Castrogreen2 sentences1993See In re Castro, 164 Ariz. 428, 433 , 793 P.2d 1095, 1100 (1990); Hoover, 161 Ariz. at 534 , 779 P.2d at 1273 . 1993See In re Castro, 164 Ariz. 428, 433 , 793 P.2d 1095, 1100 (1990); Hoover, 161 Ariz. at 534 , 779 P.2d at 1273 . | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Stoutgreen2 sentences1989Hoover I, 155 Ariz. at 199 , 745 P.2d at 946 ; In re Stout, 122 Ariz. 503, 504 , 596 P.2d 29, 30 (1979) (cause of attorney misconduct is secondary to the bar’s duty to protect the public interest). 1989Hoover I, 155 Ariz. at 199 , 745 P.2d at 946 ; In re Stout, 122 Ariz. 503, 504 , 596 P.2d 29, 30 (1979) (cause of attorney misconduct is secondary to the bar’s duty to protect the public interest). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2018Hughes , 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 59, 969 P.2d at 1198 . 2018Hughes , 193 Ariz. at 86 ¶ 59, 969 P.2d at 1198 . | 1 | 3 |
cluster 736946green2 sentences2017Compare State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 86, ¶ 59 (1998) ("Jury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is . . . improper.") with United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[c]riticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument"). 2014See State v. Hughes, 193 Ariz. 72, 86, ¶ 59 , 969 P.2d 1184, 1198 (1998) ("Jury argument that impugns the integrity or honesty of opposing counsel is . . . improper."); United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Criticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing argument"). ¶14 Romero asserts the prosecutor improperly argued that defense counsel "tried to make up" benefits a witness received for her testimony, argued outside the record, and would call a witness who could 5 STATE v. ROMERO Decision of the Court not remember every minor detail a liar | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Atwood
green
2 sentences2006Because defense counsel, in his closing argument, had questioned whether the DNA evidence proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor’s response in claiming that defense counsel knew that DNA was superior evidence called into question the integrity of defense counsel. ¶ 67 Such improper comments by the prosecutor will not require reversal of a defendant’s conviction, however, unless it is shown that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 606 , 832 P.2d at 623 . 2006Because defense counsel, in his closing argument, had questioned whether the DNA evidence proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor’s response in claiming that defense counsel knew that DNA was superior evidence called into question the integrity of defense counsel. ¶ 67 Such improper comments by the prosecutor will not require reversal of a defendant’s conviction, however, unless it is shown that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the “misconduct could have affected the jury’s verdict.” Atwood, 171 Ariz. at 606 , 832 P.2d at 623 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting
green
2 sentences1994The Commission agrees with the Committee that disbarment is the only sanction that will fulfill the purpose of lawyer discipline, which is to deter others and protect the public, In re Kersting, 151 Ariz. 171 , 726 P.2d 587 (1986), and to give the public confidence in the integrity of the bar, In re Loftus, 171 Ariz. 672 , 832 P.2d 689 (1992). 1994The Commission agrees with the Committee that disbarment is the only sanction that will fulfill the purpose of lawyer discipline, which is to deter others and protect the public, In re Kersting, 151 Ariz. 171 , 726 P.2d 587 (1986), and to give the public confidence in the integrity of the bar, In re Loftus, 171 Ariz. 672 , 832 P.2d 689 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation
green
1 sentence1994Noting this concern for the ability of non-lawyers to change employment, the California court in Complex Asbestos Litigation added its concern for the rights of clients to obtain counsel of their own choosing; balanced against those concerns, however, are “the need to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility,” and “the paramount concern” for “the preservation of public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar.” 283 Cal.Rptr. at 740 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Loftus
green
2 sentences1994The Commission agrees with the Committee that disbarment is the only sanction that will fulfill the purpose of lawyer discipline, which is to deter others and protect the public, In re Kersting, 151 Ariz. 171 , 726 P.2d 587 (1986), and to give the public confidence in the integrity of the bar, In re Loftus, 171 Ariz. 672 , 832 P.2d 689 (1992). 1994The Commission agrees with the Committee that disbarment is the only sanction that will fulfill the purpose of lawyer discipline, which is to deter others and protect the public, In re Kersting, 151 Ariz. 171 , 726 P.2d 587 (1986), and to give the public confidence in the integrity of the bar, In re Loftus, 171 Ariz. 672 , 832 P.2d 689 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Matter of Hoover
green
2 sentences1989Hoover I, 155 Ariz. at 199 , 745 P.2d at 946 ; In re Stout, 122 Ariz. 503, 504 , 596 P.2d 29, 30 (1979) (cause of attorney misconduct is secondary to the bar’s duty to protect the public interest). 1989Hoover I, 155 Ariz. at 199 , 745 P.2d at 946 ; In re Stout, 122 Ariz. 503, 504 , 596 P.2d 29, 30 (1979) (cause of attorney misconduct is secondary to the bar’s duty to protect the public interest). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
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.