Witter v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prosecutor's future dangerousness argument was proper where shank was found in defendant's cell
• concluding that parties may not ask jurors about hypothetical facts that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0
• holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to the penalty phase of a capital trial
• holding that defendant's veiled threat to arresting officers was probative to showing future dangerousness and was not unfairly prejudicial
• holding that defendant’s veiled threat to arresting officers was probative to showing future dangerousness and was not unfairly prejudicial
• concluding that four remaining aggravators clearly outweighed mitigating evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).