129 Md. App. 611 - Isley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Merritt v. State (2001), Campbell v. State (2003)
33 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 Burks v. United States · Mattox v. United States · Greene v. Massey · Jacobellis v. Ohio · United States v. Sisson
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Motion in Arrest of Judgment has long been recognized in federal criminal practice and is provided for by Criminal Rule of Procedure 34." In United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 280-83 , 90 S.Ct. 2117 , 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970), the Supreme Court described how the motion is concerned only with matters `on the face of the record' (the pleadings, the form of the verdict) and not with the evidence or the trial proceedings: An arrest of judgment was the technical term describing the fact of a trial judge refusing to enter judgment on the verdict because of an error appearing on the face of the record that rendered the judgment invalid.... For the purpose of this case the critical requirement is that a judgment can be arrested only on the basis of error appearing on the `face of the record, and not on the basis of proof offered at trial ....' This venerable requirement of the common law has been preserved under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the courts have uniformly held that in granting a motion in arrest of judgment under Rule 34, a [federal] district court must not look beyond the face of the record.... Therefore, ... a decision based on evidence adduced at trial cannot be one arresting judgment."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As the proponent of the new trial motion, the petitioner had the burden of establishing, among other things, that the confession was newly discovered evidence. The petitioner simply failed to carry it. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion for new trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) Within ten days of verdict. On motion of the defendant filed within ten days after a verdict, the court, in the interest of justice, may order a new trial. “(b) Revisory power. The court has revisory power and control over the judgment to set aside an unjust or improper verdict and grant a new trial:”
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.