33 Md. App. 115 - Bartram v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Faulkner (1984), Sims v. State (1990)
82 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · United States v. Calandra
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is hornbook law that if one spouse discovers another in an unexpected act of adultery, a killing of spouse or paramour in hot-blooded fury may lower the blameworthiness from the murder level to the manslaughter level. ... By an objective standard, moreover, the time frame must be close enough so that an average and reasonable man would not have had an adequate ‘cooling period’ for the first fury to abate. . . . . . . [I]n terms of the legal adequacy of the provocation, the discovery of adultery must be sudden and unexpected. . .. The law recognizes the human frailty of sudden fury. For the long-suffering spouse, the way out of the unbearable predicament must be the divorce court and not a bullet.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n terms of the legal adequacy of the provocation, the discovery of adultery must be sudden and unexpected. The appellant here had been a regular eyewitness, an aider and abettor (albeit a reluctant one) and indeed a bed partner to the adultery on a weekly basis for the better part of several years. All of this is simply not what is contemplated by the law of mitigation when it looks to the hot blood or uncontrollable fury of a betrayed spouse suddenly catching a partner in an unanticipated act of infidelity. The law recognizes the human frailty of sudden fury. For the long-suffering spouse, the way out of the unbearable predicament must be the divorce court and not a bullet.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"To give `the broadest possible reading' to Miranda in any respect is simply not the current tenor of Supreme Court thinking. The constitutional interpretations of that Court are not immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. It is to blink at reality for the law to pretend not to see what every literate layman knows that Miranda v. Arizona is in definite disfavor with the strong majority of the present membership of the institution charged with interpreting the law of the land. Miranda has not been overruled and is not likely to be overruled. The disfavor is manifested by its being read and applied in a restrictive rather than an expansive manner."”
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.