Zektaw v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “inculpatory” statements are probative evidence that “ma[k]e the Commonwealth’s case much stronger” in prosecuting an offense
• holding “I’d really like to talk to a lawyer” was a clear invocation of right to counsel that was not thereafter made ambiguous by defendant’s additional statement “Oh my God, oh, my Jesus, why?”
• “[Wjhether a defendant’s sentencing was affected by an error at trial is a factor in our harmless error analysis.”
• defendant’s statement that “I’d really like to talk to a lawyer” was a clear invocation of right to counsel
• “I’d really like to talk to a lawyer because this — oh my God, oh, my Jesus, why?” is sufficient
• “Right, and I’d really like to talk to a lawyer because this—oh my God, oh my Jesus, why?”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).