Bice v. Micon Products International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional
• noting that the defendant’s failure to argue that the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation was “insufficient or pretextual” at step three “may be treated as acquiescence in the validity of” the explanation
• explaining that conduct must be ‘‘assertive in nature, that is, meant to be a communication—like the nodding or shaking of the head in answer to a question—[to be] treated as a state- ment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[i]f the proffered evidence is not relevant, the defendant’s right to confrontation is not affected, and the evidence was properly excluded” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “if the legislature had sought to distinguish between the different degrees of kidnapping for purposes of § 53a-54b [5], it knew how to do so”
• defendant's counsel's failure to attempt to rebut the prosecutor's reason may be regarded as acquiescence by the defendant in the validity of the prosecutor's explanation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).