Collins motion in Maryland

2025In Fretwell, trial counsel failed to make an objection (a “Collins objection,” named after Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), overruled by Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989)) that would have rendered Fretwell ineligible for a death sentence under then-existing law, and he was sentenced to death.

2025In Fretwell, trial counsel failed to make an objection (a “Collins objection,” named after Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), overruled by Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989)) that would have rendered Fretwell ineligible for a death sentence under then-existing law, and he was sentenced to death.

2025In Fretwell, trial counsel failed to make an objection (a “Collins objection,” named after Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), overruled by Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989)) that would have rendered Fretwell ineligible for a death sentence under then-existing law, and he was sentenced to death.

2025In Fretwell, trial counsel failed to make an objection (a “Collins objection,” named after Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), overruled by Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989)) that would have rendered Fretwell ineligible for a death sentence under then-existing law, and he was sentenced to death.

2020Thus, if Mrs. Collins had filed an “Issue Form” in Mr. Collins’s claim (number B760589), seeking, for example, posthumous permanent partial disability benefits, see, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc. v. Ralph, 340 Md. 304 (1995) (permitting wife of deceased employee to proceed on claim for posthumous permanent partial disability benefits based on medical opinions the employee received before he died), Petitioners would have had a valid defense based on the Release.

2020Id. at 204-07 .

2010State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 334-38 , 403 A.2d 356 , on motion for reconsideration, 285 Md. at 334 , 403 A.2d 356 (1979) held that the provisions of the predecessor statute to Md.Code Ann.Crim.

2010State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 334-38 , 403 A.2d 356 , on motion for reconsideration, 285 Md. at 334 , 403 A.2d 356 (1979) held that the provisions of the predecessor statute to Md.Code Ann.Crim.

1999On reconsideration, the California court added, as a caveat to its per se rule excluding the testimony of a previously hypnotized witness, that "when it is the defendant himself—not merely a defense witness—who submits to pretrial hypnosis, the experience will not render his testimony inadmissible if he elects to take the stand," noting, presciently, that the exception was to "avoid impairing the fundamental right of an accused to testify in his own behalf." 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d at 1384 . [9] Judge Chasanow, in dissent, argues that a Collins rule should not apply when the witness is a

1999On reconsideration, the California court added, as a caveat to its per se rule excluding the testimony of a previously hypnotized witness, that "when it is the defendant himself—not merely a defense witness—who submits to pretrial hypnosis, the experience will not render his testimony inadmissible if he elects to take the stand," noting, presciently, that the exception was to "avoid impairing the fundamental right of an accused to testify in his own behalf." 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d at 1384 . [9] Judge Chasanow, in dissent, argues that a Collins rule should not apply when the witness is a

1986The decision whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and, in those cases involving a question of prejudice which might infringe upon the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial, the exercise of that discretion denying a mistrial will not be reversed on appeal “unless it is clear that there has been prejudice to the defendant.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 429 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974).

1986The decision whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and, in those cases involving a question of prejudice which might infringe upon the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial, the exercise of that discretion denying a mistrial will not be reversed on appeal “unless it is clear that there has been prejudice to the defendant.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 429 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974).