"since [appellant] failed to do anything more than object and request to the striking of testimony in some instances, he received all the relief requested and cannot now seek further relief."
How later courts described this case
- "since [appellant] failed to do anything more than object and request to the striking of testimony in some instances, he received all the relief requested and cannot now seek further relief."
- "since [appellant] failed to do anything *1011more than object and request to the striking of testimony in some instances, he received all the relief requested and cannot now seek further relief."
- “since [appellant] failed to do anything more than object and request the striking of testimony in some instances, he received all the relief requested and cannot now seek further relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice,
Concurring.
I join in the Opinion of the Court. “The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, cf. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 559 , 68 S.Ct. 248, 257 , 92 L.Ed. 154 , all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 723 , 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949) (Jackson, J., joined by Frankfurter & Murphy, JJ., concurring). This case amply demonstrates that what Justice Jackson said in 1949 applies today, thirty years later, with full force.