Morrison v. Crawford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the fact-finder, not for the reviewing court” evaluating challenge to sufficiency of evidence
• finding references to Defendant’s “clientele” unduly prejudicial because jurors “would . . . immediately speculate that she worked as a prostitute or paid escort”
• “We have frequently noted that the essence of conspiracy is the agreement and not the commission of the substantive offense.”
• “[T]he task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the [jury], not for the reviewing court.”
• “[T]he task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the [jury], not for the reviewing court.”
• “[T]he task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the [jury], not for the reviewing court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).