United States v. Dispoz-O-Plastics, Inc., in No. 98-1135, and Peter Iacovelli, in No. 98-1136

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 invited response doctrine is triggered only when the defense attacks the prosecution “for reasons unsupported by the evidence”
• holding that the invited response doctrine is triggered only when the defense attacks the prosecution “for reasons unsupported by the evidence”
• holding that the invited response doctrine is triggered only when the defense attacks the prosecution “for reasons unsupported by the evidence”
• holding that the invited response doctrine may not be used as a “springboard” to “launch[] affirmative attacks upon defendants”
• holding that the invited response doctrine is triggered only when the defense attacks the prosecution “for reasons unsupported by the evidence”
• “[V]ouching that is aimed at the witness’s credibility and is based on extra-record evidence is deemed non-constitutional error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).