Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 Md. App. 110 - Clark v. State

188 Md. App. 110 - Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Crawford v. Washington · Davis v. Washington · Cartnail v. State · State v. Smith

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It has been observed that, a “conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone will not be sustained unless the circumstances, taken together, are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.... The cases that have repeated that litany have been understandably vague about what would constitute a case based solely on circumstantial evidence and what would amount to inconsistency with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) GENERAL PROVISION. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) ILLUSTRATIONS. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. * * * (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this Rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be. [11] * * * (4) Circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, such as appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, location, or other distinctive characteristics, that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.