5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences2012The “cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit the witness.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S. Ct. 1105 , 39 L. 2012The “cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit the witness.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S. Ct. 1105 , 39 L. | 3 | 1988–2012 |
State v. Esposito
green
2 sentences2008Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but . . . has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit the witness.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 178-79 , 471 A.2d 949 (1984). 2008Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but . . . has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit the witness.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 178-79 , 471 A.2d 949 (1984). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gordon v. Indusco Management Corp.
green
1 sentence1984“The right of cross-examination is not a privilege but is an absolute right and if one is deprived of a complete cross-examination he has a right to have the direct testimony stricken.” Gordon v. Indusco Management Corporation, 3 64 Conn. 262, 271 , 320 A.2d 811 (1973). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.