State v. Elnicki

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that officer’s statements in videotaped interrogation are inadmissible opinion evidence and noting that “context” for defendant’s shifting stories could be shown in other ways
• holding that an officer’s statements in a videotaped interrogation are inadmissible opinion evidence and noting that “context” for a defendant’s shifting stories could be shown in other ways
• holding that an officer's statements in a videotaped interrogation are inadmissible opinion evidence and noting that \context\ for a defendant's shifting stories could be shown in other ways
• holding thai there is no difference between statements made on the witness stand pertaining to one's credibility, and ones presented in a videotape.
• holding that, just as a jury is prohibited from hearing a prosecutor's assertion that a defendant is lying, so too is a jury prohibited from hearing the recording of an interrogation in which a detective accuses a suspect of lying
• holding prosecutor erred by repeatedly referring to defendant's story as a \'fabrication'\ and a \'yarn'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).