Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 MDAPP 389 - Matusky v. State

Matusky v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2024

8 state decisions

401995200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · Williamson v. United States · 51 Md. App. 614 - Agnew v. State · State v. Standifur

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Writing for the court, Judge Joseph Murphy, Jr., [7] reasoned that: Applying Simmons, Wilson, and Williamson [8] to the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial judge should have excluded the statements in White's declaration that identified appellant as the killer and supplied appellant's motive for the murders. Those statements were simply not self-inculpatory as to White.... With respect to those portions of the declaration in which White described his role, cross-examination of White would have been of marginal utility to appellant. The same cannot be said, however, about other statements in the declaration. It is obvious that appellant had an important interest in cross-examining White [the unavailable out-of-court declarant] with respect to those portions of the declaration in which White (1) identified appellant as the killer and (2) discussed appellant's motive for the murders. Those statements should have been redacted from White's declaration against interest."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.