Hazard v. Loring

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “judges should not carelessly subject themselves to lengthy presentations whose primary purpose and effect is to engender emotions that will improperly influence the judge’s sentencing decision”
• noting “the mistaken rationale that these statements qualified as ‘victim impact’ statements under AS 12.55.023(b)”
• aptly describing video montages at issue as “the type of videos that are designed to evoke emotion and are commonly played at memorial services” and reciting playlist for each video

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).