Tharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Robinson v. State (2009), General v. State (2002)
46 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 In re Oliver · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Waller v. Georgia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general purpose of the sequestration of witnesses “has been to prevent . .. witnesses from being taught or prompted by each other’s testimony”. Additionally, the object of Maryland Rule 5-615 “is to prevent one prospective witness from being taught by hearing another’s testimony; its application avoids an artificial harmony of all the testimony; it may also avoid the outright manufacture of testimony.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) In general. Except as provided in sections (b) and (c) of this Rule, upon the request of a party made before testimony begins, the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses .... The court may order the exclusion of a witness on its own initiative or upon the request of a party at any time. The court may continue the exclusion of a witness following the testimony of that witness if a party represents that the witness is likely to be recalled to give further testimony.[ 13 ] [[Image here]] (d) Nondisclosure.... (2) The court may, and upon request of a party shall, order the witness and any other persons present in the courtroom not to disclose to a witness excluded under this Rule the nature, substance, or purpose of testimony, exhibits, or other evidence introduced during the witness absence. (e) Exclusion of testimony. The court may exclude all or part of the testimony of the witness who receives information in violation of this Rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lupfer v. State“(b) Witnesses not to be excluded. A court shall not exclude pursuant to this Rule (1) a party who is a natural person, (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, (3) an expert who is to render an opinion based on testimony given at the trial, (4) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause, such as an expert necessary to advise and assist counsel, or (5) a victim of a crime or a delinquent act, including any representative of such a deceased or disabled victim to the extent required by statute. (c) Permissive non-exclusion. The court may permit a child witness’s parents or another person having a supportive relationship with the child to remain in court during the child’s testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.