12 Md. App. 239 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably State v. Collins (1972), United States v. Benfield (1979)
3 federal appellate · 25 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 Chapman v. State of California · Johnson v. Zerbst · Brookhart v. Janis · 2 Md. App. 80 - Boone v. State · Kardy v. SHOOK, J.
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.
““[S]ince the right is constitutional, an effective waiver by the accused must be within the rule articulated in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 , that is, an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. This must be clearly established. Presuming waiver from a silent record is ordinarily impermissible for acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights may not be presumed. On the contrary every reasonable presumption against waiver must be indulged. Moore a/k/a Smith v. State, 7 Md. App. 330, 334 , citing Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1 , Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, and Wayne v. State, 4 Md. App. 424 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is certainly as much a stage of the trial as, for example, is a pretrial hearing to suppress tangible evidence because obtained by an unreasonable search or to suppress evidence of identification because tainted by an illegal confrontation. Clearly, to conduct such a hearing in the absence of an accused, unless his presence was effectively waived, would violate his constitutional right of confrontation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““b. Presence of Accused. If a deposition is taken at the instance of the State, the accused shall have the right to be present at the taking thereof and if in custody, shall be produced at the examination and kept in the presence of the witness during the examination by the officer having the defendant in custody, * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.