2 Md. App. 146 - Brady v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2003
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Linkletter v. Walker · Berman v. United States · Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner · Schowgurow 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Schowgurow , the Court of Appeals adopted the definition of ‘finality’ set forth in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 , wherein the three prerequisites to finality were set out, viz., 1. the judgment of conviction has been rendered; 2. the availability for appeal has been exhausted; 3. the time for petitioning for certiorari to the Supreme Court has elapsed. Without question the judgment in a criminal case is not ‘final’ in the usual or traditional sense of that term until the sentence has been imposed. Miller v. State, 1 Md.App. 653 , 232 A.2d 548 . See also Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 , 58 S.Ct. 164 , 82 L.Ed. 204 . We nevertheless are of the opinion— for purposes of applying the Schowgurow rule of retroactivity in Brady’s case — that his judgment of conviction was not other than ‘final’ within the meaning of Schowgurow , on October 11, 1965, the date of that decision. In excepting ‘convictions which have not become final before rendition of this opinion’ from the otherwise purely prospective operation of the legal principles announced in their decision, the Schowgurow court, in our judgment, did not contemplate the inclusion within such exception of a case in such a highly unique posture as that of Brady — a case in which Brady’s conviction had been rendered, a death sentence imposed, and the judgment of conviction affirmed on appeal, and thus finalized prior to Schowgurow , but where, in subsequent post conviction proceeding”
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.