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 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii 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. Underwood.green2 sentences2021It undermines a trial’s fairness “because it is a strik[e] at the [defendant] over the shoulders of his counsel in an attempt to prejudice the jury against the [defendant].” State v. Underwood, 142 Hawaiʻi 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Pasene, 144 Hawaiʻi 339, 370, 439 P.3d 864, 895 (2019) (“A prosecutor’s comment is clearly misconduct where it constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel’s integrity and operates to denigrate the legal profession in general.” (cleaned up)). 2020Although the prosecutor's assessment of defense counsel may have had a basis in the evidence, "[a] prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it 'constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity' and 'operates to denigrate the legal profession in general.'" Pasene, 144 Hawai#i at 370, 439 P.3d at 895 (original brackets omitted) (quoting Klinge, 92 Hawai#i at 595, 994 P.2d at 527 ); see State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai#i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018) ("Insinuations that a criminal attorney's zealous defense of a client amounts to unethical behavior strike at the founda | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pasene.green2 sentences2026Stevens argues that the statements constituted personal attacks against defense counsel that were intended "to diminish counsel's credibility and to suggest to the jury that legitimate objections and argument were manipulative or insincere." The Hawai i Supreme Court has held that "a prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity and operates to denigrate the legal profession in general." State v. Pasene, 144 Hawai i 339, 370, 439 P.3d 864, 895 (2019) (cleaned up). 2026Stevens argues that the statements constituted personal attacks against defense counsel that were intended "to diminish counsel's credibility and to suggest to the jury that legitimate objections and argument were manipulative or insincere." The Hawai i Supreme Court has held that "a prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity and operates to denigrate the legal profession in general." State v. Pasene, 144 Hawai i 339, 370, 439 P.3d 864, 895 (2019) (cleaned up). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Klingegreen2 sentences2020Although the prosecutor's assessment of defense counsel may have had a basis in the evidence, "[a] prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it 'constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity' and 'operates to denigrate the legal profession in general.'" Pasene, 144 Hawai#i at 370, 439 P.3d at 895 (original brackets omitted) (quoting Klinge, 92 Hawai#i at 595, 994 P.2d at 527 ); see State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai#i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018) ("Insinuations that a criminal attorney's zealous defense of a client amounts to unethical behavior strike at the founda 2020Although the prosecutor's assessment of defense counsel may have had a basis in the evidence, "[a] prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it 'constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity' and 'operates to denigrate the legal profession in general.'" Pasene, 144 Hawai#i at 370, 439 P.3d at 895 (original brackets omitted) (quoting Klinge, 92 Hawai#i at 595, 994 P.2d at 527 ); see State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai#i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018) ("Insinuations that a criminal attorney's zealous defense of a client amounts to unethical behavior strike at the founda | 1 | 2 |
State v. Riveira.green2 sentences2026The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that "[i]mpugning defense counsel's principles is serious misconduct" and "undermines a trial's fairness because it is a strike at the defendant over the shoulders of his counsel in an attempt to prejudice the jury against the defendant." State v. Riveira, 149 Hawai i 427, 433, 494 P.3d 1160, 1166 (2021) (cleaned up) (quoting State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018)). 2026The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that "[i]mpugning defense counsel's principles is serious misconduct" and "undermines a trial's fairness because it is a strike at the defendant over the shoulders of his counsel in an attempt to prejudice the jury against the defendant." State v. Riveira, 149 Hawai i 427, 433, 494 P.3d 1160, 1166 (2021) (cleaned up) (quoting State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Theodore Linn, United States of America v. Philip Sturlin, United States of America v. Guy Sturlingreen1 sentence2020Although the prosecutor's assessment of defense counsel may have had a basis in the evidence, "[a] prosecutor's comment is clearly misconduct where it 'constitutes an impermissible attack on defense counsel's integrity' and 'operates to denigrate the legal profession in general.'" Pasene, 144 Hawai#i at 370, 439 P.3d at 895 (original brackets omitted) (quoting Klinge, 92 Hawai#i at 595, 994 P.2d at 527 ); see State v. Underwood, 142 Hawai#i 317, 327, 418 P.3d 658, 668 (2018) ("Insinuations that a criminal attorney's zealous defense of a client amounts to unethical behavior strike at the founda | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cardona. ICA s.d.o., filed 02/06/2024 [ada], 153 Haw. 579. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/25/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/07/2024 [ada].
green
2 sentences2026As to the second prosecutorial misconduct contention, Puerto asserts: "[t]he prosecutor's argument of 'Entrapment, [r]rreeeaaalllyyy' amounted to misconduct and an impermissible attack of defense counsel's character/credulity [sic]." Citing State v. Cardona, 155 Hawaiʻi 23, 556 P.3d 369 (2024), Puerto argues that the prosecutor's rebuttal, which started with "Entrapment, rrreeeaaalllyyy?" constituted prosecutorial misconduct because "such commentary by the prosecutor served only to challenge [Puerto's] credibility." We note that Puerto's claim that the words were stated "with an exaggerated to 2026As to the second prosecutorial misconduct contention, Puerto asserts: "[t]he prosecutor's argument of 'Entrapment, [r]rreeeaaalllyyy' amounted to misconduct and an impermissible attack of defense counsel's character/credulity [sic]." Citing State v. Cardona, 155 Hawaiʻi 23, 556 P.3d 369 (2024), Puerto argues that the prosecutor's rebuttal, which started with "Entrapment, rrreeeaaalllyyy?" constituted prosecutorial misconduct because "such commentary by the prosecutor served only to challenge [Puerto's] credibility." We note that Puerto's claim that the words were stated "with an exaggerated to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.