United States v. Gaetano Modica

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once automobile seized, owner “lost any expectation of privacy, at least as to the very article contained in the car that justified forfeiture”
• holding that “if proof of guilt is strong, then the prejudicial effect of the [prosecutor’s] comments tends to be deemed insubstantial”
• noting that four improper remarks made in rebuttal were aberrational misconduct that did not demand reversal
• noting that prosecutor’s occasional use of phrases such as “I’m telling you” or “I suggest to you” would “simply [be] fair argument”
• stating that the reviewing court first must ask whether the improper comments were minor aberrations in a prolonged trial or cumulative evidence of a proceeding dominated by passion and prejudice
• finding a similar intent to inflame when the prosecutor pleaded with the jury not to let the defendant “walk out of this room laughing at you”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).