William G. Zuern, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Arthur Tate, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “whether the limiting instruction was immediate, clear, and forceful” is a factor to consider when determining whether a mistrial is warranted after an improper remark
• noting that “whether the limiting instruction was immediate, clear, and forceful” is a factor to consider when determining whether a mistrial is warranted after an improper remark
• lay witness’s unsolicited testimony that defendant was a “crazy man” who won’t hesitate to murder again did not warrant new trial
• lay witness’s unsolicited testimony that defendant was a “crazy man” who won’t hesitate to murder again did not warrant new trial.
• review of a state court’s denial of a mistrial requires application of a high standard: “reversal is not warranted unless the comment ‘was potentially so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived [the defendant] of a constitutionally fair trial’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).