Conn v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• reaching similar conclusion where defendant's proposed cross-examination of young victim about a prior sexual assault would have had little, if any, probative value while causing great trauma to young victim and creating risk of confusing the issues for the jury
• reaching similar conclusion where defendant’s proposed cross-examination of young victim about a prior sexual assault would have had little, if any, probative value while causing great trauma to young victim and creating risk of confusing the issues for the jury
• “[I]f the evidence is not relevant or unduly prejudicial, it is inadmissible and the Confrontation Clause may not be invoked to change that result.”
• \The trial court has discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible.\
• “The trial court has discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).