State v. Tallabas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant who has an expert testify regarding an insanity defense thereby “consents” to the use of his statements for rebuttal under Rule 11.7(b)(1)
• distinguishing between the admissibility of “statements relating to the issue of insanity from [inadmissible] statements wholly unrelated to that issue but tending to prove guilt”
• “The defendant cannot cast aside the protection of the privilege for matters that benefit him and then invoke the privilege to prevent the prosecution from inquiring into matters that may be harmful to him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).