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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Filer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Filer Anchor | green | “expert testimony concerning csaas is admissible to assist the jury in understanding the unusual conduct of victims of child sexual abuse where, as here, the testimony is general in nature and does 'not attempt to impermissibly prove that the charged crimes occurred” | 9 |
| 2 | People v. Wright | green | “not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in cpl 60.42 (1) through (4), and defendant failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating that such evidence was relevant and admissible pursuant to cpl 60.42 (5)” | 5 |
| 3 | People v. Hill | green | “defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to object to the allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor on summation inasmuch as those comments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct” | 4 |
| 4 | People v. Hill | green | “inasmuch as those comments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.