State v. Wederski

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 mistrial was required because the prosecutor pointed out to the jury that the defendant had not testified
• stating rule under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution
• if the state may refer to a defendant's exercise of the right against self-incrimination with impunity, the right is \meaningless\
• if the state may refer to a defendant’s exercise of the right against self-incrimination with impunity, the right is “meaningless”
• where “certain fruits of [a burglary] were found on the person of the defendant * * * the testimony of the accomplice was corroborated”
• the “presumably harmful effect” of prosecutorial misconduct may be obviated by a proper instruction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).