In the Interest of J.G. and S.G., Minor Children

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 trial court should have excluded a lengthy video of Appellant’s interview with investigators in which the investigators repeatedly expressed their certainty about Appellant’s guilt and spoke highly of the victim
• recognizing that “[g]enerally, a witness’ opinion as to the credibility, guilt, or innocence of the accused is inadmissible,” and “it is especially troublesome when a jury is repeatedly exposed to an interrogating officer’s opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused”
• finding reversible error where State introduced videotape of defendant’s interrogation, in which officers repeatedly expressed their personal opinions about defendant’s guilt
• reversing for new trial due to admission of police interview footage that included statements of officers “expressing their conviction in Jackson’s guilt”
• “It is especially harmful for a police witness to give his opinion of a [witness’s] credibility because of the great weight afforded an officer’s testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).