United States v. Clydell Younger

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 single improper statement did not materially affect the verdict
• concluding that the question, “But, excuse me, if I am right, I can have a lawyer present through all this, right?” did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel
• holding that a single improper statement did not materially affect the verdict
• holding the question “excuse me, if I am right, I can have a lawyer present through all this, right?” to be ambiguous and therefore not sufficient to require officers to stop questioning
• rejecting claim of attorney misconduct where, although prosecutors may have erred by improperly “vouching” for witness testimony during closing arguments, “the prosecutors used the phrase ‘we know’ to marshal evidence actually admitted at trial”
• “we know” not improper when used to “marshal evidence actually admitted at trial and reasonable inferences from that evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).