Silverman v. Gundelfinger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “inconsistency in the testimony of the State’s witnesses does not constitute a knowing use of perjury”
• movement of victim from front of house to back bathroom was not insignificant, was not an inherent part of other charged of that separate offense; and (4
• accused’s own testimony may be used to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony against him
• movement of victim from front of house to back bathroom was not insignificant, was not an inherent part of other charged crimes and placed victim in more dangerous situation
• movement of victim from front of house to back bathroom was not insignificant, was not an inherent part of other charged crimes and placed victim in more dangerous situation
• accused’s own testimony may be used to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony against him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).