Ramos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that violations of probation may not be used to impeach a defendant's credibility
• holding prosecutor's comments on defendant's post-arrest silence were justified in response to defendant's direct-examination testimony and defense counsel's summation
• finding that defendant's \open[ing] the door\ on his post-arrest silence justified State's comments on it
• finding prosecutor's comment on \post-arrest silence ordinarily would be improper\ during summation, but the A-0928-20 78 defendant \opened the door\ by suggesting he had not been given the opportunity to explain what occurred
• a prosecutor has the right to call to the jury's attention discrepancies in a defendant's testimony and then argue that the defendant was not truthful, but cannot express a personal opinion regarding the credibility of a defendant's testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).