Szaraz v. Ohio

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “interception” occurred at both the site of the target phone and where the communication was first heard
• noting that \it is a `rare case'\ in which improper summation comments by prosecution will be so prejudicial as to warrant new trial (quoting Floyd v. Meachum, 907 F.2d 347, 348 (2d Cir.1990))
• noting that “it is a ‘rare case’ ” in which improper summation comments by prosecution will be so prejudicial as to warrant new trial (quoting Floyd v. Meachum, 907 F.2d 347, 348 (2d Cir.1990))
• noting that “it is a ‘rare case’” in which improper summation comments by prosecution will be so prejudicial as to warrant new trial (quoting Floyd v. Meachum, 907 F.2d 347, 348 (2d Cir. 1990)
• deeming “facts and circumstances” more significant than “the exact words used by the trial judge” to a waiver examination
• stating the government’s “affidavit indicated that ... all of the intercepted conversations would ‘first be heard in the- Northern District of California’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).