Finck v. VL 10 1620 New Highway, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing need for strict control of any such evidence even where necessary to show state of police knowledge
• calling defendant monster was \wholly inappropriate and should not have occurred\
• when determining whether an error was harmless, we examine whether the erroneously admitted evidence was cumulative of other evidence
• “Disclosure of the substance of the conversation ordinarily is not required . . .”; prejudice is less likely if the jury hears that individuals acted “as a consequence of a conversation”
• factors to be considered in analyzing harmlessness of error include importance of the evidence to prosecution’s case, frequency of reference to challenged evidence, whether challenged evidence was cumulative, and whether other evidence was overwhelming
• prosecutor “called the defendant a ‘monster’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).