Miranda v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to 4 prevent against a “straw-man ploy…Courts should balance the probative value of admitting the prior inconsistent statement for its legitimate impeachment purpose against the danger of unfair prejudice created by the jury misusing the statement for substantive purposes”
• testimony admitted only for impeachment purposes is without probative value and cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of evidence supporting conviction
• general hearsay objections “preserved nothing for review” on complaint that prior inconsistent statements were being offered for improper purpose
• general hearsay objections \preserved nothing for review\ on complaint that prior inconsistent statements were being offered for improper purpose
• \The impeachment of one's own witness should be presumed proper under Rule 607.\
• “The impeachment of one’s own witness should be presumed proper under Rule 607.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).