Candida Ibarra Venegas v. Martin De La Cruz Medina

How courts have described this case

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

• impermissible propensity argument in defen- dant’s statement that he had participated in so many drug deals he could not remember the specific deal with which he was charged
• “[I]t is not enough to say that the outcome probably would have been the same without the pros- ecutor’s improper propensity inference and the evi- dence of [the defendant’s] past unrelated drug deals.”
• “In a case where the circumstantial evidence against Simpson was close, the prosecution’s explicit instruction to the jury to draw the inference that Simpson had conducted ‘so many’ crack cocaine deals that he could not remember the deal for which he stood trial was a power- ful argument.”
• explaining the “intricately related evidence” doc- trine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).