34 Md. App. 654 - Pierce v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Redditt v. State (1995), 43 Md. App. 109 - Bing Fa Yuen v. State (1979)
28 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 · United States v. Wade · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Graves v. United States · Gaither v. United States
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If it is not apparent from that rule that the Court of Appeals recognizes the right of counsel to argue legal presumptions or legitimacy of inferences which may be contrary to Maryland law, the Court of Appeals’ cases make it abundantly clear. They rest upon Maryland’s unique blessing or burden, that “the Jury shall be the Judges of the Law, as well as facts”, Md. Const., Art. XV, § 5; from which it reasonably follows, that if the jury is the judge of the law, legal argument may be made to it. Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15, 21 [ 116 A.2d 363 ]; Wilkerson v. State, 171 Md. 287, 290 [ 188 A. 813 ]; Samson v. State, 27 Md.App. 326 [ 341 A.2d 817 ]. The right to argue conflicting interpretations of the law, or the application thereof in dubious factual situations, e.g., Schanker v. State, supra, has been held proper even in the face of instructions to the contrary, Wilson v. State, 239 Md. 245, 255-256 [ 210 A.2d 824 ], without regard to Md.Rule 756e. Because we have so recently spoken upon the right of counsel to argue relevant law to the jury (as well as the limitations upon that right), Samson v. State, supra, suffice to say the right is well preserved, both by the Court of Appeals and by this Court, as long as Maryland retains its unique constitutional provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course appeals to passion and prejudice may so poison the minds of jurors even in a strong case that an accused may be deprived of a fair trial. But each case necessarily turns on its own facts. And where, as here, the record convinces us that these statements were minor , aberrations in a prolonged trial and not cumulative evidence of a proceeding dominated by passion and prejudice reversal would not promote the ends of justice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The “missing witness rule”, “... even in criminal cases is that if a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would eludicate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable.” Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 , 14 S.Ct. 40, 41 , 37 L.Ed. 1021 .”
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.