Gosling v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing Mullis in part because the two sides presented solely officer and inmate testimony as evidence
• reversing conviction where a juror repeatedly stated “that he would tend to believe a correctional officer and to disbelieve witnesses that were inmates” because he believed that the officer lacked any incentive to lie, whereas inmates were incentivized to lie
• after lengthy explanation of law regarding the credibility of witnesses, juror again indicated that he would favor the testimony of a corrections officer
• reviewing a juror’s voir dire in these two steps

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).