Supreme Court of Connecticut· 6/22/2004

State v. Santiago

Citations

269 Conn. 726
850 A.2d 199
2004 Conn. LEXIS 234

How courts have described this case

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

finding that prosecutor’s inflammatory questions during cross-examination without reasonable basis in evidence were improper
concluding prosecutor’s comments merely summarized defendant’s position when he stated: “[D]id Michael Ibscher lie? Did all these witnesses get together and lie? The police lied? That’s what they want us to believe.” [Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.]
although defendant’s nickname, “Danger,” was in evidence, prosecutor’s use of nickname eighteen times during closing argument was improper appeal to jury’s passions, emotions and prejudices
prosecutor’s use and incorporation of nickname at least eighteen times during closing argument beyond mere reference to defendant was improper
“ ‘[defendant is not entitled to prevail when] the claimed misconduct was not blatantly egregious and merely consisted of isolated and brief episodes that did not reveal a pattern of conduct repeated throughout the trial’ ”
‘‘the defendant, by failing to bring them to the attention of the trial court, bears much of the responsibility for the fact that [the] claimed improprieties went uncured’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.