Rodney Sherman v. New York State Thruway Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of the defendant’s expression of anti-establishment and anti-law enforcement views was logically relevant to demonstrate his motive to plant a bomb that would result in killing law enforcement officers
• holding that evidence of the defendant’s expression of anti-establishment and anti-law enforcement views was logically relevant to demonstrate his motive to plant a bomb that would result in killing law enforcement officers
• holding that any constraint on the manner of jury deliberations by acquittal-first instructions “does not rise to the level of a violation of either the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”
• explaining that a court examines prior versions of a statute as part of statutory context
• noting that “[t]he two tests, in all but rare circumstances, lead to the same conclu- sion”
• explaining that, in Hayward and Brumwell, after evaluating nature of disputed evidence in light of circumstances of crime, court concluded that record in both cases showed connection between disputed evidence and defendants’ motives and intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).