Wright ex rel. Ensley v. Knepper

How courts have described this case

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

• arguing that courts “must defer to the District Attorney’s exercise of discretion in conceding sentencing error[,]” which we rejected
• noting that a Kloiber instruction is not required where a witness was uncertain about or inconsistent with certain details of the crime
• explaining that the judicial branch is not required to adopt the parties’ agreement on legal conclusions; “a district attorney’s concession of error is not a substitute for independent judicial review”
• stating that appellate courts are “neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.”
• explaining that appellate courts are “neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.”
• stating that appellate courts are “neither obliged, nor even particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).