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.
9 Maryland opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2024 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kazadi v. Stategreen2 sentences2024When the trial court made this ruling, we had not yet decided Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), which held that “on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” Jordan, 480 Md. at 493 , 505 (quoting Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 ). 2024When the trial court made this ruling, we had not yet decided Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), which held that “on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” Jordan, 480 Md. at 493 , 505 (quoting Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 ). | 5 | 9 |
Twining v. Statered2 sentences2021Johnson, Clerk 15:00-05:00 Filed: December 20, 2021 In Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 9 , 223 A.3d 554, 559 (2020), we held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, we overruled Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97, 100 , 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964), in which this Court had previously held that a trial court was not required to ask such voir dire question 2021Johnson, Clerk 15:00-05:00 Filed: December 20, 2021 In Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1, 9 , 223 A.3d 554, 559 (2020), we held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, we overruled Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97, 100 , 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964), in which this Court had previously held that a trial court was not required to ask such voir dire question | 3 | 3 |
Stevenson v. Statered2 sentences2021Significantly, last year, in Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 , 223 A.3d at 559 , this Court held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, this Court relied on key developments in the law—namely, the holdings in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 179-80 , 423 A.2d 558, 565 (1980), and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91 , 437 A.2d 654, 658 (1981), “that, 2021Significantly, last year, in Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 , 223 A.3d at 559 , this Court held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, this Court relied on key developments in the law—namely, the holdings in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 179-80 , 423 A.2d 558, 565 (1980), and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91 , 437 A.2d 654, 658 (1981), “that, | 1 | 2 |
Montgomery v. Statered2 sentences2021Significantly, last year, in Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 , 223 A.3d at 559 , this Court held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, this Court relied on key developments in the law—namely, the holdings in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 179-80 , 423 A.2d 558, 565 (1980), and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91 , 437 A.2d 654, 658 (1981), “that, 2021Significantly, last year, in Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 , 223 A.3d at 559 , this Court held “that, on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” In so holding, this Court relied on key developments in the law—namely, the holdings in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 179-80 , 423 A.2d 558, 565 (1980), and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91 , 437 A.2d 654, 658 (1981), “that, | 1 | 2 |
State v. Logangreen2 sentences2021Prior to Kazadi, this Court held that “[voir dire] is not the appropriate time for the trial court to instruct the jury on the law that is applicable to the case.” Id. at 26 , 223 A.3d at 569 (citing Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97, 100 , 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964); State v. Logan, 394 Md. 378 , 399–400, 906 A.2d 374, 387 (2006)). 2021Prior to Kazadi, this Court held that “[voir dire] is not the appropriate time for the trial court to instruct the jury on the law that is applicable to the case.” Id. at 26 , 223 A.3d at 569 (citing Twining v. State, 234 Md. 97, 100 , 198 A.2d 291, 293 (1964); State v. Logan, 394 Md. 378 , 399–400, 906 A.2d 374, 387 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2024When the trial court made this ruling, we had not yet decided Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), which held that “on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” Jordan, 480 Md. at 493 , 505 (quoting Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 ). 2024When the trial court made this ruling, we had not yet decided Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), which held that “on request, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the defendant’s right not to testify.” Jordan, 480 Md. at 493 , 505 (quoting Kazadi, 467 Md. at 9 ). | 3 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.