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 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pena v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In Pena, this Court set forth a 75 Id. 76 Id. at A403-04. 77 Id. at A1276. 78 Id. at A1458 (Jury Instructions). 79 856 A.2d 548, 550-51 (Del. 2004) (citing Griffith v. State, 2003 WL 1987915 , at *4 (Del. 2003)). 80 Opening Br. at 25 n.10. 81 Chambers v. State, 930 A.2d 904, 909 (Del. 2007). 19 four-factor test for appellate review of an alleged prejudicial remark by a witness: (1) the nature and frequency of the offending comment; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the adequacy of the judge’s actions to mitigate any potential prejudice.82 Here, i 2021In Pena, this Court set forth a 75 Id. 76 Id. at A403-04. 77 Id. at A1276. 78 Id. at A1458 (Jury Instructions). 79 856 A.2d 548, 550-51 (Del. 2004) (citing Griffith v. State, 2003 WL 1987915 , at *4 (Del. 2003)). 80 Opening Br. at 25 n.10. 81 Chambers v. State, 930 A.2d 904, 909 (Del. 2007). 19 four-factor test for appellate review of an alleged prejudicial remark by a witness: (1) the nature and frequency of the offending comment; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the adequacy of the judge’s actions to mitigate any potential prejudice.82 Here, i | 1 | 3 |
Chambers v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In Pena, this Court set forth a 75 Id. 76 Id. at A403-04. 77 Id. at A1276. 78 Id. at A1458 (Jury Instructions). 79 856 A.2d 548, 550-51 (Del. 2004) (citing Griffith v. State, 2003 WL 1987915 , at *4 (Del. 2003)). 80 Opening Br. at 25 n.10. 81 Chambers v. State, 930 A.2d 904, 909 (Del. 2007). 19 four-factor test for appellate review of an alleged prejudicial remark by a witness: (1) the nature and frequency of the offending comment; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the adequacy of the judge’s actions to mitigate any potential prejudice.82 Here, i 2021In Pena, this Court set forth a 75 Id. 76 Id. at A403-04. 77 Id. at A1276. 78 Id. at A1458 (Jury Instructions). 79 856 A.2d 548, 550-51 (Del. 2004) (citing Griffith v. State, 2003 WL 1987915 , at *4 (Del. 2003)). 80 Opening Br. at 25 n.10. 81 Chambers v. State, 930 A.2d 904, 909 (Del. 2007). 19 four-factor test for appellate review of an alleged prejudicial remark by a witness: (1) the nature and frequency of the offending comment; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the adequacy of the judge’s actions to mitigate any potential prejudice.82 Here, i | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lawrence Simon Postongreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 1 |
Dawson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningfiil and practical alternatives to that remedy.”3 1 Smith v. State, 963 A.2d 719, 722 (Del. 2008). 2 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008). 3 Smith, 963 A.2d at 722 (internal quotations omitted). 5 (13) In Pena v. State, this Court developed a four—part analysis to determine whether the unsolicited comments of a witness require the trial judge to declare a mistrial.4 This analysis considers: (1) the nature and frequency of the comments; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the s 2015The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningfiil and practical alternatives to that remedy.”3 1 Smith v. State, 963 A.2d 719, 722 (Del. 2008). 2 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008). 3 Smith, 963 A.2d at 722 (internal quotations omitted). 5 (13) In Pena v. State, this Court developed a four—part analysis to determine whether the unsolicited comments of a witness require the trial judge to declare a mistrial.4 This analysis considers: (1) the nature and frequency of the comments; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the s | 1 | 1 |
Revel v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningfiil and practical alternatives to that remedy.”3 1 Smith v. State, 963 A.2d 719, 722 (Del. 2008). 2 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008). 3 Smith, 963 A.2d at 722 (internal quotations omitted). 5 (13) In Pena v. State, this Court developed a four—part analysis to determine whether the unsolicited comments of a witness require the trial judge to declare a mistrial.4 This analysis considers: (1) the nature and frequency of the comments; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the s 2015The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningfiil and practical alternatives to that remedy.”3 1 Smith v. State, 963 A.2d 719, 722 (Del. 2008). 2 Revel v. State, 956 A.2d 23, 27 (Del. 2008). 3 Smith, 963 A.2d at 722 (internal quotations omitted). 5 (13) In Pena v. State, this Court developed a four—part analysis to determine whether the unsolicited comments of a witness require the trial judge to declare a mistrial.4 This analysis considers: (1) the nature and frequency of the comments; (2) the likelihood of resulting prejudice; (3) the closeness of the case; and (4) the s | 1 | 1 |
Justice v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See also Justice v. State, 947 A.2d 1097 , 1102 n.23 (Del.2008) (discussing but not reaching the Pena issue decided here). 15 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Stromberg
green
2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 2020–2020 |
William Tallo v. United States
green
2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Jerry Gene Smith
green
2 sentences2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref 2020See United States v. Poston, 430 F.2d 706 (6th Cir. 1970) (finding error where the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to strike and to declare a mistrial after a witness referenced the defendant’s probation status and no curative action was taken); United States v. Smith, 403 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1968) (finding a curative instruction to be insufficient where a witness referenced the defendant’s prior jail sentence); Tallo v. United States, 344 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1965) (finding error where the trial court denied trial counsel’s motion to strike and motion for a mistrial after a witness ref | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.