7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences2000In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the United States Supreme Court recognized that [cjross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.... [T]he cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. 2000In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the United States Supreme Court recognized that [cjross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.... [T]he cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. | 4 | 1976–2000 |
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences2008The Maryland Court of Appeals similarly' held that a witness’s interest in confidentiality was outweighed by a criminal defendant’s confrontation and due process rights in Robinson v. State, 354 Md. 287, 313 , 730 A.2d 181 (1999). 2008The Maryland Court of Appeals similarly' held that a witness’s interest in confidentiality was outweighed by a criminal defendant’s confrontation and due process rights in Robinson v. State, 354 Md. 287, 313 , 730 A.2d 181 (1999). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kirkland v. Mannis
green
2 sentences1994The plaintiff contended that the defendant committed legal malpractice "`[b]y unethically manufacturing a story for the defense ... and causing plaintiff to relate same to the court causing the plaintiff to be convicted of the crime charged.'" 639 P.2d at 672 . 1994The plaintiff contended that the defendant committed legal malpractice “ ‘[b]y unethically manufacturing a story for the defense ... and causing plaintiff to relate same to the court causing the plaintiff to be convicted of the crime charged.’ ” 639 P.2d at 672 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wimpling v. State
green
1 sentence1976In Wimpling v. State, 171 Md. 362, 376 , the Court of Appeals held that opinions of experts should not be allowed on subjects within the range of common knowledge of the average man. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Douglas v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1975“By so doing the cross-examiner intends to afford the jury a basis to infer that the witness’ character is such that he would be less likely than the average trustworthy citizen to be truthful in his testimony.” Id. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.