31 Md. App. 666 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably Blackwell v. State (1976), 68 Md. App. 379 - Glenn v. State (1986)
36 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 Berger v. United States · Burgett v. Texas · 63 Cal. 2d 779 - People v. Smith · Wilhelm v. State · 28 Md. App. 640 - Evans 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, we are confronted with an appeal in a case which has been tried twice, the first resulting in a mistrial. The second trial consumed ten days and some 23 witnesses testified. It would defy logic and any notion of fundamental justice and of judicial economy if this case were to be reversed solely on the ground of a violation of the Burgett principle [Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 , 88 S.Ct. 258 , 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967) ], when it is a fact of public record that appellant was represented by counsel in connection with the prior conviction and, as appears from the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gill v. State, 265 Md. 350 , 289 A.2d 575 (1972), reversing Gill v. State, 11 Md.App. 378 , 274 A.2d 667 (1971), we are not permitted the alternative of a remand, without affirmance or reversal, for the limited purpose of receiving in evidence the docket entries in the prior case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Intoxication is no excuse for crime; yet when it so clouds the intellect as to deprive it of the power to think and weigh the nature of the act committed, it may prevent a conviction of murder in the first degree. The intent to take life, with a full and conscious knowledge of the purpose to do so, is the distinguishing criterion of murder in the first degree; and this consciousness of the purpose of the heart is defined by the words deliberately and premeditatedly.” Id. at 406. (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision 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.