26 Md. App. 511 - Comi v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably State v. Wilson (1977), 95 Wash. 2d 706 - State v. Lair (1981)
38 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States · Wilhelm v. State · 19 Md. App. 507 - Stanley 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The primary purpose or office of an opening statement in a criminal prosecution is to apprise with reasonable succinctness the trier of facts of the questions involved and what the State or the defense expects to prove so as to prepare the trier of facts for the evidence to be adduced. While the prosecutor should be allowed a reasonable latitude in his opening statement he should be confined to statements based on facts that can be proved and his opening statement should not include reference to facts which are plainly inadmissible and which he cannot or will not be permitted to prove, or which he in good faith does not expect to prove. An opening statement by counsel is not evidence and generally has no binding force or effect. To secure a reversal based on an opening statement the accused is usually required to establish bad faith on the part of the prosecutor in the statement of what the prosecutor expects to prove or establish substantial prejudice resulting therefrom. Clarke v. State, 238 Md. 11, 19-20 , 207 A.2d 456, 460 (1965); Ott v. State, 11 Md. App. 259, 266 , 273 A.2d 630, 634, cert. denied, 262 Md. 748 (1971).” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The secondary source here was not a paid police informer, nor promised any sort of inducement to speak. In fact he had no way of knowing his information would eventually arrive at police headquarters. He was merely relating an occurrence to a friend. We conclude that [the secondary source] had no motive to lie and his information was conveyed in circumstances consistent with its reliability.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Atwell v. State
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.