Wilhelm v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 district · 396 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 398 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Johnson v. State (1985), Hunt v. State (1990)
2 district · 396 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 · Kotteakos v. United States · Griffin v. California · Berger v. United States · Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
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 398 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a limitation upon the general scope of permissible closing argument this Court in Esterline v. State, 105 Md. 629 , 66 A. 269 (1907), cautioned that counsel should not be permitted by the court, over proper objection, to state and comment upon facts not in evidence or to state what he could have proven. Persistence in such course of conduct may furnish good grounds for a new trial. The conduct of the trial must of necessity rest largely in the control and discretion of the presiding judge and an appellate court should in no case interfere with that judgment unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge of a character likely to have injured the complaining party.”
47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is unquestionably wrong for the prosecutor in his argument to the jury to refer to any matter not testified to by the witness or disclosed by the evidence in the case. Citing Toomer v. State, 112 Md. 285 , 76 A. 118 (1910).... The Maryland Rule is that unless it appears that the jury were actually misled or were likely to have been misled or influenced to the prejudice of the accused by the remarks of the state’s attorney, reversal of the conviction on this ground would not be justified. Quoting Wood v. State, 192 Md. 643 , 65 A.2d 316 (1949); Holbrook v. State, 6 Md.App. 265 , 250 A.2d 904 (1969).”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[A] request for a mistrial in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]'”
9 later decisions 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.