Commonwealth v. Phoenix

How courts have described this case

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

• finding remarks not prejudicial after taking into consideration various factors including that judge had individually screened each juror for potential prejudice because such practice protects defendant from biased verdict
• the testimony of Dr. Schanfield that GM testing is generally accepted in the scientific community and used in over 11 countries was unrefuted
• the testimony of Dr. Schanfield that GM testing is generally accepted in the scientific community and used in over 11 countries was unrefuted
• “improper for the prosecutor to invite the jury to impute racial animosity into a situation without evidence to support it”
• no prejudice where [1] Commonwealth’s expert testimony stemmed from photograph of fingerprint before it was washed away; and [2] defendant had access to photograph
• no prejudice where Commonwealth’s two experts based their testimony on photograph of fingerprint before it was washed away; defendant had access to photograph and could have arranged for own expert analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).