5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Russogreen2 sentences2000See id. at 485-86 ; Russo, 713 P.2d at 362 . 1994“This standard recognizes that the trial judge is the only judicial officer able to perform the critical assessments by personal observation of the credibility and demeanor of the prospective juror.” People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237, 1243 (Colo.1988); see also Russo, 713 P.2d at 362 (stating that “the resolution of the challenge will ultimately turn on an assessment of such intangibles as the juror’s credibility with respect to his own state of mind and his attitude toward the serious responsibility of jury duty”). | 1 | 2 |
Carrillo v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2000See Carrillo, 974 P.2d at 485 , The justification for this normally highly deferential standard of review is that the resolution of a challenge for cause ultimately turns upon an assessment of a prospective juror's credibility, demeanor, and sincerity in explaining his state of mind. 2000See id. at 485-86 ; Russo, 713 P.2d at 362 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Drakegreen1 sentence1994“This standard recognizes that the trial judge is the only judicial officer able to perform the critical assessments by personal observation of the credibility and demeanor of the prospective juror.” People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237, 1243 (Colo.1988); see also Russo, 713 P.2d at 362 (stating that “the resolution of the challenge will ultimately turn on an assessment of such intangibles as the juror’s credibility with respect to his own state of mind and his attitude toward the serious responsibility of jury duty”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. MacRander
red
1 sentence2011Because we perceive no error in the court's resolution of the challenge for cause to juror D, we need not address the parties' arguments concerning whether any error would be reversible per se under People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo.1992). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
green
1 sentence1986But again, the defense would turn primarily on objective factors. 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738. [17] The dissenting opinion reads our decision as adopting a "bright-line rule" that turns the resolution of immunity issue on whether the prosecutor's conduct in question occurred prior to or subsequent to the formal filing of criminal charges. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Continental Nat. Bank v. Dolan
green
2 sentences1985Continental National Bank v. Dolan, 39 Colo.App. 16 , 564 P.2d 955 (1977). 1985Continental National Bank v. Dolan, 39 Colo.App. 16 , 564 P.2d 955 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.