Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/21/2009

State v. Arroyo

Citations

973 A.2d 1254
292 Conn. 558
2009 Conn. LEXIS 205

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “the trial court should instruct the jury that the informant’s testimony must ‘be reviewed with particular scrutiny and weighed . . . with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness’” (alteration in original
noting that Connecticut cases had recognized three distinct categories of inconsistent verdicts – factually inconsistent, legally inconsistent, and logically inconsistent
extending Patterson instruction to testimony of all jailhouse informants, even without “express promise of a benefit” from government
expanding Patterson and holding that trial court should give special credibility instruction “whenever such testimony is given, regardless of whether the informant has received an express promise of a benefit”
claims of factual, logical and legal inconsistency between con- viction and acquittal are not reviewable
‘‘the expecta- tion of a [r]eward for testifying is a systemic reality . . . even where the informant has not received an explicit promise of a reward’’ (citation omitted; internal quota- tion marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rogers, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.