Pang v. Maimonides Medical Center-Maimonides Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that where witnesses contradict each other, and the contradiction is not attributable to mistake, a credibility contest results and it is proper advocacy for a cross-examiner to highlight it
• explaining that where witnesses contradict each other, and the contradiction is not attributable to mistake, a credibility contest results and it is proper advocacy for a cross-examiner to highlight it
• holding the defendant’s challenge that the prosecutor used snide remarks to portray him as a liar was not prejudicial because “[t]he use of sarcasm is, of course, a well recognized device to illustrate the inherent implausibility of a witness’s testimony”
• “[T]ellingly, defendant’s failure to object to any of the questions is perhaps the best indication of the absence of any real prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).