weakness defense in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1946–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Buhlgreen conn · 2016 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021This fact might constitute inadequate briefing; see, e.g., State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688, 724 , 138 A.3d 868 (2016); but we take it as an indication of the weakness of the claim and choose to reject the claim on its merits. 2021This fact might constitute inadequate briefing; see, e.g., State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688, 724 , 138 A.3d 868 (2016); but we take it as an indication of the weakness of the claim and choose to reject the claim on its merits.	1	1
State v. Salamongreen conn · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 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]). 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	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Parsons green conn · 1992 1 sentence 2001“The prosecutor is not precluded in argument from commenting on the strength of [the state’s] case or the weakness of the defense case . . . [and] is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Washington, 28 Conn. App. 369, 377 , 610 A.2d 1332 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 926 , 614 A.2d 829 (1992).	1	2001–2001
State v. Washington green conn · 1992 1 sentence 2001“The prosecutor is not precluded in argument from commenting on the strength of [the state’s] case or the weakness of the defense case . . . [and] is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Washington, 28 Conn. App. 369, 377 , 610 A.2d 1332 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 926 , 614 A.2d 829 (1992).	1	2001–2001
State v. Washington green connappct · 1992 2 sentences 2001“The prosecutor is not precluded in argument from commenting on the strength of [the state’s] case or the weakness of the defense case . . . [and] is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Washington, 28 Conn. App. 369, 377 , 610 A.2d 1332 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 926 , 614 A.2d 829 (1992). 2001“The prosecutor is not precluded in argument from commenting on the strength of [the state’s] case or the weakness of the defense case . . . [and] is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Washington, 28 Conn. App. 369, 377 , 610 A.2d 1332 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 926 , 614 A.2d 829 (1992).	1	2001–2001
State v. Kluttz green connappct · 1987 2 sentences 1992The prosecutor is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn. App. 686, 705-706 , 521 A.2d 178 (1987). “ ‘[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.’ Donn 1992The prosecutor is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn. App. 686, 705-706 , 521 A.2d 178 (1987). “ ‘[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.’ Donn	1	1992–1992
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1992The prosecutor is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn. App. 686, 705-706 , 521 A.2d 178 (1987). “ ‘[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.’ Donn 1992The prosecutor is entitled to comment on a defendant’s failure to call witnesses to contradict the factual character of the government’s case ... as well as his failure to support his own factual theories with witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn. App. 686, 705-706 , 521 A.2d 178 (1987). “ ‘[A] court should not lightly infer that a prosecutor intends an ambiguous remark to have its most damaging meaning or that a jury, sitting through lengthy exhortation, will draw that meaning from the plethora of less damaging interpretations.’ Donn	1	1992–1992
State v. Magnotti green conn · 1985 2 sentences 1987State v. Magnotti, [ 198 Conn. 209, 220 , 502 A.2d 404 (1985)]; see United States ex rel. 1987State v. Magnotti, [ 198 Conn. 209, 220 , 502 A.2d 404 (1985)]; see United States ex rel.	1	1987–1987
Meigs v. Theis green conn · 1925 1 sentence 1946Meigs v. Theis, 102 Conn. 579, 595 ; State ex rel.	1	1946–1946

Where else courts name it

CA 9 (1955–2026) CT 6 (1946–2021) FL 4 (2007–2018) DC 4 (2000–2001) NY 4 (1926–1998) MI 4 (1989–2025) WA 3 (1918–2015) KS 3 (1949–2021) OH 3 (1998–2018) MA 3 (1992–2003) GA 3 (1907–2001) IL 3 (1965–2020) PA 2 (1996–2015) NE 2 (1955–1991) MS 2 (1874–1995) MO 2 (1971–1980) AK 2 (2000–2007) WI 2 (1977–2024) TX 2 (1980–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check