Pimentel-Soto v. v.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under Clayton, a no-corroboration instruction “correctly stated the law and was not an improper comment on the evidence”
• holding that under Clayton, a no-corroboration instruction “correctly stated the law and was not an improper comment on the evidence”
• holding that a no-corroboration instruction is not reversible error
• discussing the \very limited class\ of errors not subject to harmless error analysis
• discussing the “very limited class” of errors not subject to harmless error analysis
• expressing misgivings about an instruction advising the jury that an alleged victim's testimony need not be corroborated, but finding no error in giving the instruction as it was an accurate statement of the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).