C. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

How courts have described this case

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

• sufficient evidence because jury permitted to “ascribe meaning to the tableau” of defendants dividing up cash totaling $1,500
• sufficient evidence because jury permitted to “ascribe meaning to the tableau” of defendants dividing up cash totaling $1,500
• “police officer with experience in narcotics investigations, qualifying as an expert, may . . . describe in general terms how drug transactions are carried out on the street level”
• experienced narcotics investigators may “describe in general terms how drug transactions are carried out on the street level” to help jury understand “the evidence they have heard of particular conduct on the street”
• detective gave expert testimony concerning “midlevel drug distribution”; the expert testimony was probative because it allowed the jury to understand the nature of the drug operation described by the percipient witnesses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).