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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Maskenygreen1 sentence2013In determining whether an individual is qualified to serve on the grand and petit juries of a United States District Court, the federal judge may not allow the person to serve as a juror if the individual “is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(1). 6 Challenges to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1865 often occur through a party’s argument that he or she was deprived of the right to a fair trial because the rule deprives parties of their right to be tried before a jury repr | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ana Luisa Gordon-Nikkargreen1 sentence2013In United States v. Gordon-Nikkar, 518 F.2d 972, 975 (5th Cir.1975), a Miami defendant argued that because her community was composed of thirty percent resident aliens, mostly of Cuban descent, the U.S. citizenship requirement for jurors was unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
Trusty v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Judge Orth, speaking for the Court of Appeals in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 673 , 521 A.2d 749, 756 (1987), reiterated what has always been the keystone of our justice system: “A fair trial is the alpha and the omega of our administration of criminal justice.” When we exclude highly relevant evidence on the grounds of expediency and supposed fairness to a defendant's accuser, we make the fair trial requirement subordinate to these purposes. 1987Judge Orth, speaking for the Court of Appeals in Trusty v. State, 308 Md. 658, 673 , 521 A.2d 749, 756 (1987), reiterated what has always been the keystone of our justice system: “A fair trial is the alpha and the omega of our administration of criminal justice.” When we exclude highly relevant evidence on the grounds of expediency and supposed fairness to a defendant's accuser, we make the fair trial requirement subordinate to these purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Drope v. Missourigreen2 sentences1977See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 , 86 S. Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 545, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). 1977See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 , 86 S. Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 545, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1977See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 , 86 S. Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 545, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. State
green
2 sentences2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u 2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u | 3 | 1991–2012 |
Atkins v. State
green
1 sentence2012After distinguishing Evans , the Court explained that the “instruction did not adequately protect Atkins’s right to a fair trial because the instruction invaded the province of the jury and constituted commentary on the weight of the evidence, which comment was improper.” Id. at 453, 26 A.3d 979 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u 2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Green v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u 2012On appeal, in Foster, id. at 202 , 464 A.2d 986 , the defendant contended that “the application of the hearsay rule, which prevented her from presenting a portion of her defense, rendered her trial fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due process of law.” Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 , 99 S.Ct. 2150 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), 24 and Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, concluding that “[r]egardless of whether the proffered testi mony [was] inadmissible because of Maryland’s hearsay rule, u | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Estelle v. Williams
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 505-06 , 96 S.Ct. at 1694 , 48 L.Ed.2d at 131 . 1998Id. at 505-06 , 96 S.Ct. at 1694 , 48 L.Ed.2d at 131 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Pate v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1977See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 , 86 S. Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 545, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). 1977See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162, 172 , 95 S. Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 385 , 86 S. Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); Sullivan v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 545, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.