5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1881–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel L. Bruno v. Ruth L. Rushen, Director, California Department of Corrections, and Paul J. Morris, Warden, California State Prison at Folsomgreen1 sentence1994So keep that in mind as I get interrupted, which I did not do.” The federal courts have held that it is constitutional error for a prosecutor to attack the integrity of defense counsel in order to impute guilt to a defendant. “[T]he obvious import of the prosecutor’s comments was that . . . defense counsel in criminal cases are retained solely to lie and distort the facts and camouflage the truth in an abominable attempt to confuse the jury as to their client’s involvement with the alleged crimes.” Bruno v. Rushen, 721 F.2d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Singh
green
2 sentences2014We transferred the appeal to the Appellate Court, where the defendant contended with respect to that claim that the prosecutor: ‘‘(1) repeat- edly commented on the guilt of [the] defendant and attempted to influence the jury by his persistent use of the terms victim, murder, and murder weapon through- out the trial; (2) argued that to acquit [the] defendant, the jury would have to find that every other witness was wrong in violation of State v. Singh, [supra, 259 Conn. 693 ]; (3) appealed to the jurors’ passions and emotions; (4) denigrated the integrity of defense coun- sel in closing argumen 2011II The defendant next claims that he “was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s repeated and deliberate improprieties that occurred throughout the trial.” He argues that the “prosecutor exceeded the bounds of acceptable conduct when he: (1) repeatedly commented on the guilt of [the] defendant and attempted to influence the jury by his persistent use of the terms ‘victim,’ ‘murder,’ and ‘murder weapon’ throughout the trial; (2) argued that to acquit [the] defendant, the jury would have to find that every other witness was wrong in violation of State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 , [ 793 A.2d 2 | 2 | 2011–2014 |
Heiney v. Florida
green
1 sentence1994McCarthy v. Bruno, 469 U.S. 920 , 105 S. Ct. 302 , 83 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
McCollum v. United States
green
1 sentence1994McCarthy v. Bruno, 469 U.S. 920 , 105 S. Ct. 302 , 83 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Garrison v. Hudson
green
1 sentence1994McCarthy v. Bruno, 469 U.S. 920 , 105 S. Ct. 302 , 83 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Union & New Haven Trust Co. v. Ackerman
green
2 sentences1934In the present case a study of the will in question and of the relevant circumstances, convinces me that a clear intent is shown which makes the rule inapplicable, as ■in Union & New Haven Trust Co. v. Ackerman, 114 Conn. 152 , 158 Atl. 224 . 1934In the present case a study of the will in question and of the relevant circumstances, convinces me that a clear intent is shown which makes the rule inapplicable, as ■in Union & New Haven Trust Co. v. Ackerman, 114 Conn. 152 , 158 Atl. 224 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Parker v. Canfield
green
1 sentence1881Parker v. Canfield, 37 Conn., 250 . | 1 | 1881–1881 |
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.