People v. Marquantte

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the court did not err in excluding testimony about victims’ reputation for violence because there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the victims’ prior violent acts
• explaining that a “court has broad discretion to determine what actions are necessary to regulate the courtroom” when a spectator makes “a specific threat . . . against a witness” outside of the courtroom
• “A court has broad discretion to determine what actions are necessary to regulate the courtroom.”
• “Evidence of [the victim’s] past violent acts is . . . relevant only if the defendant can establish that he had knowledge of those acts and acted on the basis of that knowledge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).