State v. Sabetta

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an ambiguous and equivocal statement invoking the right to counsel did not require the cessation of questioning and applying that same standard to the invocation of the right to remain silent
• “it would, effectively invade the province of the jury and ... open a floodgate whereby experts would testify on every conceivable aspect of a witness’s credibility”
• authority to license, inspect and regulate strip mines was not equivalent to actual control of a strip mine operation or reclamation
• \it would effectively invade the province of the jury and . . . open a floodgate whereby experts would testify on every conceivable aspect of a witness's credibility\
• Davis v. United States, supra, not discussed, but court held that defendant must make statement that is “clear articulation of his desire to remain silent”
• “[T]o introduce the expert testimony of a psychologist concerning the unreliability of eyewitness memory. . . would effectively invade the province of the jury and . . . open a floodgate whereby experts would testify on every conceivable aspect of a witness’s credibility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).