110 Md. App. 543 - Leeks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Martinez v. State (2010), Peterson v. State (2015)
30 state decisions
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 United States v. Abel · Lewis v. Adamson · Danial Siebert v. Alabama · Hall v. State · Simmons v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n on the record evidentiary hearing, with the jurors out of the courtroom, is necessary when the trial judge is asked to rule in limine that a witness cannot be asked questions permitted by Rule 5-616(a)(4). Rules 5-401 and 5-403 apply at this hearing, interrogation should be limited to the matters listed in Rule 5-616(a)(4), and counsel are not entitled to turn the hearing into a discovery deposition. At this hearing, however, the trial judge must afford counsel an adequate opportunity to question the witness about every fact that would reasonably suggest the existence of bias. When the trier of fact is a jury, questions permitted by Rule 5-616(a)(4) should be prohibited only if (1) there is no factual foundation for such an inquiry in the presence of the jury, or (2) the probative value of such an inquiry is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or confusion. If the trial court decides to exclude circum stantial evidence of bias, it must state why it is prohibiting counsel from presenting such evidence to the jury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sixth Amendment right of confrontation includes the right to cross-examine about matters that affect a witness's bias, interest, or motive to lie.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the absolute preclusion of cross-examination pertaining to a witness's motive for testifying would be an abuse of discretion[,]”
1 later decision 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.