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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gunning v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Noting that courts in other jurisdictions were split as to whether an eyewitness identification instruction should be mandatory, we adopted the approach that left the decision “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 345 , 701 A.2d at 380 . 2008Noting that courts in other jurisdictions were split as to whether an eyewitness identification instruction should be mandatory, we adopted the approach that left the decision “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 345 , 701 A.2d at 380 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Cromedygreen2 sentences2004Cromedy, 727 A.2d at 465 ("It is well established in this State that when identification is a critical issue in the case, the trial court is obligated to give the jury a discrete and specific instruction that provides appropriate guidelines to focus the jury's attention on how to analyze and consider the trustworthiness of eyewitness identification."). 2004Cromedy, 727 A.2d at 465 (“It is well established in this State that when identification is a critical issue in the case, the trial court is obligated to give the jury a discrete and specific instruction that provides appropriate guidelines to focus the jury’s attention on how to analyze and consider the trustworthiness of eyewitness identification.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2006There was no division among the judges of this Court, however, with regard to the requested instruction that addressed cross-racial identification: all three judges agreed that it was within the discretion of the trial court to refuse to give Chief Judge Bazelon’s Telfaire instruction. 158 Md.App. at 696, 857 A.2d 1198 (Eyler, James, J.: “Under the holding of Giunning, that the giving of an eyewitness identification instruction lies within the discretion of the trial court, it necessarily follows that the giving of the instruction at issue in this case lies within the trial court’s discretion. 2006There was no division among the judges of this Court, however, with regard to the requested instruction that addressed cross-racial identification: all three judges agreed that it was within the discretion of the trial court to refuse to give Chief Judge Bazelon’s Telfaire instruction. 158 Md.App. at 696, 857 A.2d 1198 (Eyler, James, J.: “Under the holding of Giunning, that the giving of an eyewitness identification instruction lies within the discretion of the trial court, it necessarily follows that the giving of the instruction at issue in this case lies within the trial court’s discretion. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Melvin Telfaire
green
2 sentences1997United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 556 , 152 U.S.App. 1997United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 556 , 152 U.S.App. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.