Lynott v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• addressing specific disqualification instances in Canon 3 (E) that were formerly addressed in Canon 3 (C), court ruled that “[t]his was not an instance where any violation of the specific standards of Canon 3 (C
• defendant’s assertion of prejudice because of missing audiotape of no moment when audiotape was destroyed by State due to bad quality
• defendant's assertion of prejudice because of missing audiotape of no moment when audiotape was destroyed by State due to bad quality
• no bad faith where police destroyed tape recording of meeting with defendant because it was unintelligible
• no bad faith where police destroyed tape recording of meeting with defendant because it was unintelligible
• no bad faith where an audio tape recording of officer’s meeting with defendant was destroyed because it was unintelligible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).