People v. Warmack

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 conviction occurred 11 years before trial, did not result in confinement and therefore lay beyond the 10-year limit”
• no violation of the privilege where defendant in a robbery trial ordered to put on clothing to determine whether it fits him
• \no testimonial compulsion was involved\ when the trial court forced the defendant to model certain clothing in front of the jury
• introduction of mug shot bearing arrest date prior to offenses in question was error but was harmless where a trial without such error would have produced no different result

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).