Daniel L. Bruno v. Ruth L. Rushen, Director, California Department of Corrections, and Paul J. Morris, Warden, California State Prison at Folsom

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the prosecutor's \insidious attacks on Bruno's exercise of his constitutional right to counsel and his attacks on the integrity of defense counsel were error\
• finding prosecutor's improper remarks implying \defense counsel in criminal cases are retained solely to lie and distort the facts and camouflage the truth\ were not harmless
• finding prosecutor’s closing 10 comments improper when he equated defendant’s hiring of counsel with guilt and suggested that 11 defense counsel was retained to “lie and distort the facts and camouflage the truth”
• discussing how prosecutorial attacks on defense counsel affect due process rights
• prosecutor's \insidious\ attacks on defendant's exercise of his right to counsel and on the integrity of defense counsel were errors of constitutional dimension
• prosecutor’s “insidious” attacks on defendant’s exercise of his right to counsel and on the integrity of defense counsel were errors of constitutional dimension

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).