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 1995–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2010The State cites United States v. Montgom ery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness’ credibility. 2010The State cites United States v. Montgom ery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness’ credibility. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Valentino Montgomerygreen2 sentences2010The State cites United States v. Montgomery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness' credibility. 2010The State cites United States v. Montgom ery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness’ credibility. | 2 | 2 |
Perry v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Wise contends that the trial court erred in finding Harris competent after an in limine hearing because his memory loss precluded him from having “sufficient capacity to observe, recollect, and recount pertinent facts.” Perry v. State, 381 Md. 138, 145 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Barner
green
2 sentences2010The State cites United States v. Montgom ery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness’ credibility. 2010The State cites United States v. Montgom ery, 390 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004), State v. Young, 378 S.C. 101 , 661 S.E.2d 387, 388 (2008), and People v. Barner, 374 Ill.App.3d 963 , 313 Ill.Dec. 122 , 871 N.E.2d 849 (2007), for the proposition that failure to register as a sex offender is not a crime reflecting upon a witness’ credibility. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Calloway v. State
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 625-30 , 996 A.2d 869 . 2018Id. at 625-30 , 996 A.2d 869 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Elmer v. State
green
2 sentences2010As this Court stated in Elmer v. State, 353 Md. 1 , 724 A.2d 625 (1999): It would be folly to suggest that questions alone cannot impeach. 2010As this Court stated in Elmer v. State, 353 Md. 1 , 724 A.2d 625 (1999): It would be folly to suggest that questions alone cannot impeach. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2009Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Williamson v. United States
green
2 sentences2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. 2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. 2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Simmons v. State
green
2 sentences2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. 2002The jury had already been selected, but had not been sworn. [7] Now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals. [8] Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 , 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994); Wilson v. State, 334 Md. 313 , 639 A.2d 125 (1994); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). [9] The statement against interest exception to the hearsay evidence rule is the same in the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Maryland Rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1995State v. Jones, 311 Md. 23, 29-30 , 532 A.2d 169 (1987). . 1995State v. Jones, 311 Md. 23, 29-30 , 532 A.2d 169 (1987). . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.