From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
State v. Malave
Connecticut Supreme Court
737 A.2d 442 (1999)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Backed by ample evidence, Connecticut prosecutors indicted Alex Malave (defendant) for assault. At trial, despite Malave’s testimony that Cindy Castro could vouch for his alibi, Malave never called Castro to testify. The trial court instructed the jurors that they could, but need not, infer that Castro’s testimony, if produced, would have been unfavorable to Malave. The jury found Malave guilty. An intermediate appellate court upheld Malave’s conviction. Malave appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Palmer, J.)
Concurrence (Callahan, C.J.)
Dissent (Berdon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
