Methal v. Village of Ardsley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that limitation on testimony from key witness did not violate the defendant’s ability to present a defense, where counsel was still able to argue his theory of the case
• holding that the jury did not need to agree as to which particular act of the defendant was a “substantial step” toward the commission of a crime sufficient to find the defendant guilty of attempt
• stating that the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is “whether the instructions as a whole are misleading or inadequate to guide the jury’s deliberation” (emphasis added)
• explaining that jury instructions must correctly state the law
• excluding expert testimony that defendant valued sexual text messages with minors as fantasy alone
• admitting evidence defendant was not a hebophile but questioning the reasoning in Gladish

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).