Skip to main content
· 11/9/2010

Arlton v. Schraut

Citations

  • 936 N.E.2d 831
  • 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2063
  • 2010 WL 4472126

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court should have admitted enhanced photographs that were accurate representations of the evidence
  • noting the ‘‘unintended issues’’ that may arise from providing jury with direct computer access
  • ‘‘[t]he trial court could also have properly given the jury the videotape during delibera- tions and allowed them to view the videotape in open court’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mathias, Baker, Najam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.