Soeder v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a curative instruction “would have been appropriate” where the prosecutor “blatantly misstated the law” during closing argument
• concluding that admission of conviction for prior offense was unduly prejudicial under Rule 404(b)(2)(C) in trial for later commission of same offense
• probative value must be considered in the context of its incremental value and the extent to which the issue is established by other evidence
• “Because of the similarity of the [prior] conviction . . . and the charged crimes, the jury may have been persuaded to find the defendant guilty, at least in part, because he had previously committed the same offense.” (quotation omitted)
• curative instruction appropriate where prosecutor “blatantly misstated the law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).