Cook v. Babcock

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[i]nstructing the jury to consider the testimony ‘irrelevant’ to their deliberations is not enough”
• explaining that the federal and state constitutions guarantee criminal suspects the right against compelled self-incrimination and that “[t]hose provisions prohibit the prosecution from drawing the jury’s attention to the defen- dant’s exercise of this right”
• finding a reference prejudicial under analogous circumstances where the ref- erence was not incidental but the primary focus of the pros- ecutor’s line of questioning
• “For a trial to be fair, the verdict must be based on the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
• A reference to the exercise of a constitutional right Nonprecedential Memo Op: 336 Or App 489 (2024) 491 “may not be prejudicial if it is incidental to some other point that diverts the jury’s focus * * * or it is ambiguous and iso- lated without any elaboration[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).