Brown v. Ornoski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of “impulse control problems” did not warrant finding, of prejudice
• holding that evidence of “impulse control problems” did not warrant finding of prejudice
• noting that attention deficit disorder is a “somewhat common disorder[]” and concluding that “although [an attention deficit disorder diagnosis would] add quantity to the mitigation case, [it] add[s] little in terms of quality”
• noting that attention deficit disorder is a “somewhat common disorder[]” and concluding that “although [an attention deficit disorder diagnosis would] add quantity to the mitigation case, [it] add[s] little in terms of quality”
• “Although [defense counsel’s] decision to put [a witness] on the stand came with some risks, it came with benefits to [the defendant] as well. . . . [that] were available only if [the witness] were called.”
• \The trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard any extraneous comments and to decide the case based only on the evidence at trial; juries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).