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.
7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2016 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. Rayasgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., United States v. Rayas, 20 C.M.R. 195, 198 (Ct. Military App. 1955); People v. Lem Do, 132 Cal. 199, 201 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1901); 81 Am. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lem Deogreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., United States v. Rayas, 20 C.M.R. 195, 198 (Ct. Military App. 1955); People v. Lem Do, 132 Cal. 199, 201 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1901); 81 Am. | 1 | 1 |
Dowdell v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1977See, e.g., Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474 ; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55-56 ; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-243 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation 1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation | 2 | 1968–1978 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation 1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation | 2 | 1968–1968 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016A possible “language-conduit” exception to twentieth-century federal hearsay rules is by no means a constitutional confrontation exception that was “established at the time of the founding.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2016A possible “language-conduit” exception to twentieth-century federal hearsay rules is by no means a constitutional confrontation exception that was “established at the time of the founding.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wildermuth v. State
green
2 sentences1991Id. at 519 , 530 A.2d 275 . 1991Id. at 519 , 530 A.2d 275 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Douglas v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1978The Court’s holding may be summarized in this part of its statement at p. 407: “Because the transcript of [the witness’] statement offered against petitioner at his trial had not been taken at a time and under circumstances affording petitioner through counsel an adequate opportunity to cross-examine [the witness], its introduction ... in a criminal case ... amounted to denial of the privilege of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Re-affirmation of this concept of the right of confrontation — that of preserving and ensuring the right of *320 cross-examination — came in Douglas v | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Barber v. Page
green
1 sentence1978The Court’s holding may be summarized in this part of its statement at p. 407: “Because the transcript of [the witness’] statement offered against petitioner at his trial had not been taken at a time and under circumstances affording petitioner through counsel an adequate opportunity to cross-examine [the witness], its introduction ... in a criminal case ... amounted to denial of the privilege of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.” Re-affirmation of this concept of the right of confrontation — that of preserving and ensuring the right of *320 cross-examination — came in Douglas v | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Motes v. United States
green
1 sentence1977See, e.g., Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474 ; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55-56 ; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-243 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mattox v. United States
green
1 sentence1977See, e.g., Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474 ; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55-56 ; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-243 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Kirby v. United States
green
1 sentence1977See, e.g., Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458, 474 ; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 55-56 ; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242-243 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Roberts v. Russell
green
2 sentences1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation 1968Subsequent to the trial of this case below the Supreme Court of the United States in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 overruled Delli Paoli, supra, and it held that in a joint trial the introduction of an extra *380 judicial statement of one co-defendant implicating another violates the right of the other to have the witnesses confront him as secured by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 that the “ 'major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.