Doris Weedon Irrevocable Trust v. Larimar US Virgin Is. Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the prosecutor could discuss the concept of “grooming” in the absence of evidence regarding grooming because the concept was within the common knowledge of jurors
• concluding that the State was not required to provide expert testimony of grooming when, in closing arguments, it discussed how the defendant, charged with child molestation, groomed the victim
• concluding there was no reversible prosecutorial misconduct because the defendant “has not shown any prejudice incurable by a jury instruction,” since “[c]losing arguments are not evidence, and the jury here was given an instruction to that effect”
• “Closing arguments are not evidence, and the jury here was given an instruction to that effect. Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.” (citation omitted)
• when a prosecutorial misconduct claim is made in the context of a PRP, the petitioner has an additional “hurdle” of showing actual and substantial prejudice
• when a prosecutorial misconduct claim is made in the context of a PRP, the petitioner has an additional “hurdle” of showing actual and substantial prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).