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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Swintongreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Ticknor , Docket No. 1 CA-CR 11-0359, 2012 WL 1067236 , *3 n.4 (Ariz. App. March 29, 2012) (explaining that rule exempting victims from sequestration "gives effect" to attendance provision of victim's rights amendment to Arizona constitution); State v. Beltran-Felix , 922 P.2d 30 , 33-35, 38 (Utah App. 1996) (presence of victim at trial, as permitted by victim's rights amendment to Utah constitution, did not violate defendant's federal constitutional right to fair trial); National Victim Center, The 1996 Victims' Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims' R 2017See, e.g., State v. Ticknor , Docket No. 1 CA-CR 11-0359, 2012 WL 1067236 , *3 n.4 (Ariz. App. March 29, 2012) (explaining that rule exempting victims from sequestration "gives effect" to attendance provision of victim's rights amendment to Arizona constitution); State v. Beltran-Felix , 922 P.2d 30 , 33-35, 38 (Utah App. 1996) (presence of victim at trial, as permitted by victim's rights amendment to Utah constitution, did not violate defendant's federal constitutional right to fair trial); National Victim Center, The 1996 Victims' Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims' R | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Beltran-Felix
green
2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Ticknor, Docket No. 1 CA-CR 11-0359, 2012 WL 1067236 , *3 n.4 (Ariz. App. March 29, 2012) (explaining that rule exempting victims from sequestra- tion ‘‘gives effect’’ to attendance provision of victim’s rights amendment to Arizona constitution); State v. Bel- tran-Felix, 922 P.2d 30 , 33–35, 38 (Utah App. 1996) (presence of victim at trial, as permitted by victim’s rights amendment to Utah constitution, did not violate defendant’s federal constitutional right to fair trial); National Victim Center, The 1996 Victims’ Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victim 2017See, e.g., State v. Ticknor , Docket No. 1 CA-CR 11-0359, 2012 WL 1067236 , *3 n.4 (Ariz. App. March 29, 2012) (explaining that rule exempting victims from sequestration "gives effect" to attendance provision of victim's rights amendment to Arizona constitution); State v. Beltran-Felix , 922 P.2d 30 , 33-35, 38 (Utah App. 1996) (presence of victim at trial, as permitted by victim's rights amendment to Utah constitution, did not violate defendant's federal constitutional right to fair trial); National Victim Center, The 1996 Victims' Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims' R | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McCown
green
2 sentences2016In State v. McCown, supra, 68 Conn.App. at 819 , 793 A.2d 281 , for example, the defendant sought to have his mother testify to his intellectual capabilities after she had been present in the courtroom and heard the detective who had taken the defendant's statement testify about his observations of the defendant when the detective had questioned him. 2016In State v. McCown, supra, 68 Conn.App. at 819 , 793 A.2d 281 , for example, the defendant sought to have his mother testify to his intellectual capabilities after she had been present in the courtroom and heard the detective who had taken the defendant's statement testify about his observations of the defendant when the detective had questioned him. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2000In addition, relying on this court’s decision in State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 526 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), the Appellate Court concluded that a trial court’s decision to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing when confronted with an alleged sequestration violation is a matter of discretion. 2000In addition, relying on this court’s decision in State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 526 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), the Appellate Court concluded that a trial court’s decision to conduct a formal evidentiary hearing when confronted with an alleged sequestration violation is a matter of discretion. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Robinson
neutral
2 sentences1994In the Appellate Court’s view, the sequestration violation was likely to have affected the jury’s verdict in that it “went to the heart of the defense . . . [and King’s] testimony directly contradicted that of the defense witnesses.” State v. Robinson, 32 Conn. App. 448, 458 , 630 A.2d 87 (1993). 1994In the Appellate Court’s view, the sequestration violation was likely to have affected the jury’s verdict in that it “went to the heart of the defense . . . [and King’s] testimony directly contradicted that of the defense witnesses.” State v. Robinson, 32 Conn. App. 448, 458 , 630 A.2d 87 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.