Skip navigation

Hood v. Helling, No. 96-4180 (8th Cir.) (141 F.3d 892) (April 14, 1998) (Judge Diana E. Murphy)

The majority defined "mutually antagonistic defenses" as those which "force the jury to disbelieve the core of on defense in order to believe the core of the other." (Id., at 896). In his dissent, Judge Lay argued that to urge that the defenses asserted in this case were not irreconcibable ...

 

Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.

As a digital subscriber to Punch and Jurists, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login