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 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford v. Stategreen1 sentence1977Nor are our early statements in Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514, 549 (1859), and League v. State, 36 Md. 257, 265-66 (1872), to the contrary. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McKay
green
2 sentences2013In addition, the Court of Appeals had explicitly concluded that “[t]here is no historical support ... for an interpretation of Article 21 that would make jury unanimity an imperative requirement as opposed to a right which can be waived.” Id. at 569 , 375 A.2d 228 . 2013In addition, the Court of Appeals had explicitly concluded that “[t]here is no historical support ... for an interpretation of Article 21 that would make jury unanimity an imperative requirement as opposed to a right which can be waived.” Id. at 569 , 375 A.2d 228 . | 4 | 1987–2013 |
McKay v. State
green
2 sentences1993That court concluded that "unanimity is an imperative requirement of a legal verdict in a Maryland criminal prosecution before a jury, and not a right of the accused which he may waive...." Id. 1993That court concluded that “unanimity is an imperative requirement of a legal verdict in a Maryland criminal prosecution before a jury, and not a right of the accused which he may waive.... ” Id. | 2 | 1977–1993 |
People v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1989The Illinois court stated in People v. Anderson, supra, 106 Ill.Dec. at 515 , 505 N.E.2d at 1306 , as follows: “[I]t has been recognized that while this instruction is intended to benefit a defendant by cautioning the jury not to infer guilt from his failure to testify, it might, on the other hand, have the negative effect of calling the jury’s attention thereto. 1989The Illinois court stated in People v. Anderson, supra, 106 Ill.Dec. at 515 , 505 N.E.2d at 1306 , as follows: “[I]t has been recognized that while this instruction is intended to benefit a defendant by cautioning the jury not to infer guilt from his failure to testify, it might, on the other hand, have the negative effect of calling the jury’s attention thereto. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Zimmerman
green
2 sentences1989State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11, 14-19 , 273 A.2d 156 (1971). 1989State v. Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11, 14-19 , 273 A.2d 156 (1971). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Givens v. State
green
1 sentence1987Id. [280 Md.] at 569-70, 375 A.2d 228 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
League v. State
green
1 sentence1977Nor are our early statements in Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514, 549 (1859), and League v. State, 36 Md. 257, 265-66 (1872), to the contrary. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Patton v. United States
red
1 sentence1977As we indicated earlier, the Supreme Court has never been confronted with the question whether unanimity of a jury verdict in either federal or state criminal trials is an *567 imperative requirement under the Federal Constitution, or is instead a right or privilege guaranteed the accused which he may waive. 10 Nevertheless, the Court’s decision in Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276 , is instructive. | 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.