State ex rel. Loeber v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• witness identification procedure utilizing photographic array not unnecessarily suggestive when witness had been informed that suspect was present in array
• witness identification procedure utilizing photographic array not unnecessarily suggestive when witness had been informed that suspect was present in array
• microscopic hair analysis not type of evidence subject to Porter hearing because it simply required jurors to use their ownpowers of observation and comparison
• testimony of criminologist regarding visible characteristics of and similarities between strands of hair not “scientific evidence” for Porter purposes
• “[o]nce the trial court has served its gate-keeping function in accordance with [State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 69, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998
• possible improper instruction cured by court's repeated proper instruction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).