State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “‘facially incriminating’” evidence from eodefendant as ground for severance under Rule 13.4
• discussing Waller and noting that “the Waller test applies to both complete and partial closures of Arizona criminal trials”
• noting it is the province of the jury, not the appellate court, to assess the witnesses’ credibility
• no abuse of discretion when State presented events of conspiracy committed by co-defendants that did not involve the defendant
• declarations of coconspirator admissible “and there is no requirement that a coconspirator’s statement satisfy the Confrontation Clause”
• “[T]here is no requirement that a coconspirator’s statement satisfy the Confrontation Clause to be admissible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).