Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2016In what it called a “rather straightforward *345 application” (id. at 312, 129 S.Ct. 2527 ) of the Crawford rule, a majority of the Court concluded that “the analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 311, 129 S.Ct. 2527 . 2016In what it called a “rather straightforward *345 application” (id. at 312, 129 S.Ct. 2527 ) of the Crawford rule, a majority of the Court concluded that “the analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 311, 129 S.Ct. 2527 . | 2 | 4 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2016See Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 308-11 (“‘certificates of analysis’ showing the results of the forensic analysis performed” of a powdered substance determined to be cocaine were “testimonial” and were improperly admitted at trial without the live testimony of the analysts); Bullcoming, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. at 2710, 2713 (a forensic laboratory report certifying that the defendant’s blood contained a specified concentration of alcohol was not admissible through the testimony of a laboratory analyst who had “not sign[ed] the certification or personally perform[ed] or observe[d] the performance of 2016See Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 308-11 (“‘certificates of analysis’ showing the results of the forensic analysis performed” of a powdered substance determined to be cocaine were “testimonial” and were improperly admitted at trial without the live testimony of the analysts); Bullcoming, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. at 2710, 2713 (a forensic laboratory report certifying that the defendant’s blood contained a specified concentration of alcohol was not admissible through the testimony of a laboratory analyst who had “not sign[ed] the certification or personally perform[ed] or observe[d] the performance of | 2 | 3 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011Later, Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), expanded on the Crawford principle, creating the following test for determining whether an out-of-court statement given during police interrogation is testimonial: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. 2011Later, Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), expanded on the Crawford principle, creating the following test for determining whether an out-of-court statement given during police interrogation is testimonial: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lucasgreen2 sentences2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . 2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . 2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . | 1 | 1 |
Langley v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . 2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . | 1 | 1 |
Luginbyhl v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2011See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 829 , 126 S.Ct. 2266, 2278 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224, 241 (2006) (assuming to be correct the Washington Supreme Court’s conclusion that a statement violative of Crawford was nonetheless harmless); see also Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 , 48 Va.App. 58, 64 (Va.Ct.App.2006) (en banc) (citation omitted) (“It is well established that violations of the Confrontation Clause ... are subject to harmless error review, ... and Crawford does not suggest otherwise.”). 2011See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 829 , 126 S.Ct. 2266, 2278 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224, 241 (2006) (assuming to be correct the Washington Supreme Court’s conclusion that a statement violative of Crawford was nonetheless harmless); see also Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 , 48 Va.App. 58, 64 (Va.Ct.App.2006) (en banc) (citation omitted) (“It is well established that violations of the Confrontation Clause ... are subject to harmless error review, ... and Crawford does not suggest otherwise.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2021Over Crawford’s objection based on the Confrontation Clause, the trial court admitted the wife’s statement to police, and the prosecution relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [Crawford’s] claim of self-defense.” Id. at 40-41 . 2010The Admission into Evidence of the Former Testimony of Officer Duggan and the Chemist The appellant contends the trial court erroneously admitted the former testimony of Officer Duggan and the chemist because (a) the State did not demonstrate that either witness was “unavailable” to testify, as it was required to do under Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , and (b) Rule 5-802.1 does not apply to the former testimony of a witness not present at trial. 16 The State responds that the appellant’s claim of a Crawford violation, including his argument that | 3 | 2006–2021 |
State v. Norton
green
2 sentences2016An additional component of Crawford’s analysis "involves whether there is historical authority for the admission of the challenged statement, despite its testimonial nature.” Norton, 443 Md. at 532 , 117 A.3d 1055 . 2016An additional component of Crawford’s analysis "involves whether there is historical authority for the admission of the challenged statement, despite its testimonial nature.” Norton, 443 Md. at 532 , 117 A.3d 1055 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Hersch v. State
green
2 sentences2016We note that, in Hersch v. State, 317 Md. 200, 208 , 562 A.2d 1254 (1989), the Court of Appeals observed that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a probationer is entitled to several basic rights, including the right to confront witnesses; and that *358 right, although "not quite as broad as that afforded a defendant in a criminal proceeding,” "remains a valuable and fundamental right.” The Court cited Fuller , but made no mention of the Sixth Amendment. 13 . 2016We note that, in Hersch v. State, 317 Md. 200, 208 , 562 A.2d 1254 (1989), the Court of Appeals observed that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a probationer is entitled to several basic rights, including the right to confront witnesses; and that *358 right, although "not quite as broad as that afforded a defendant in a criminal proceeding,” "remains a valuable and fundamental right.” The Court cited Fuller , but made no mention of the Sixth Amendment. 13 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bailey v. State
green
2 sentences2016Five years later, in Bailey, the Court, citing Morrissey and Gagnon, stated that “because probation revocation is not a stage of the criminal process, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not required at a probation revocation hearing.” 327 Md. at 698 . “[A] probationer is entitled to due process at such a hearing,” however, id., and we recognized in [Fuller] that there is some right of confrontation, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment . . . , which is guaranteed to a probationer at a probation revocation hearing. 2016Five years later, in Bailey, the Court, citing Morrissey and Gagnon, stated that “because probation revocation is not a stage of the criminal process, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not required at a probation revocation hearing.” 327 Md. at 698 . “[A] probationer is entitled to due process at such a hearing,” however, id., and we recognized in [Fuller] that there is some right of confrontation, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment . . . , which is guaranteed to a probationer at a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Malaska v. State
neutral
2 sentences2016Accordingly, Blanks’s reliance upon this Court's decisions in Norton v. State, 217 Md.App. 388 , 94 A.3d 110 (2014), and Malaska v. State, 216 Md.App. 492 , 88 A.3d 805 (2014), both of which apply the Crawford standard in criminal proceedings, is misplaced. 12 . 2016Accordingly, Blanks’s reliance upon this Court's decisions in Norton v. State, 217 Md.App. 388 , 94 A.3d 110 (2014), and Malaska v. State, 216 Md.App. 492 , 88 A.3d 805 (2014), both of which apply the Crawford standard in criminal proceedings, is misplaced. 12 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Norton v. State
green
2 sentences2016Accordingly, Blanks’s reliance upon this Court's decisions in Norton v. State, 217 Md.App. 388 , 94 A.3d 110 (2014), and Malaska v. State, 216 Md.App. 492 , 88 A.3d 805 (2014), both of which apply the Crawford standard in criminal proceedings, is misplaced. 12 . 2016Accordingly, Blanks’s reliance upon this Court's decisions in Norton v. State, 217 Md.App. 388 , 94 A.3d 110 (2014), and Malaska v. State, 216 Md.App. 492 , 88 A.3d 805 (2014), both of which apply the Crawford standard in criminal proceedings, is misplaced. 12 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Snowden
green
2 sentences2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . 2013See Cox, 421 Md. at 642 , 28 A.3d at 694 ; Langley v. State, 421 Md. 560, 562, 28 A.3d 646, 647 (2011); State v. Lucas, 407 Md. 307, 311 , 965 A.2d 75, 78 (2009); Snowden, 385 Md. at 68 , 867 A.2d at 316 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Whorton v. Bockting
green
2 sentences2012It was first decided that the rule announced in Crawford would not have been compelled by precedent existing at the time that Bockting’s conviction became final in 1993: Because the Crawford rule was not dictated by the governing precedent existing at the time when respondent’s conviction became final, the Crawford rule is a new rule. 549 U.S. at 417 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 . 2012It was first decided that the rule announced in Crawford would not have been compelled by precedent existing at the time that Bockting’s conviction became final in 1993: Because the Crawford rule was not dictated by the governing precedent existing at the time when respondent’s conviction became final, the Crawford rule is a new rule. 549 U.S. at 417 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.