Stephens v. Soule

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disqualifying the defendant’s chosen counsel when counsel also represented someone “who was anticipated to testify in the prosecution of Heidt, and who herself was charged with intimidating a witness in his prosecution”
• finding that “the involvement of the trial judge with the issuance of search warrants” did not require recusal
• noting that it is the jury’s role to resolve conflicting expert testimony
• noting that it is the jury’s role to resolve conflicting expert testimony
• rejecting an argument that a trial judge needed to be disqualified based on his involvement in matters “directly related to [the defendant’s] case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).