37 Md. App. 222 - Waine v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Simmons v. State (1988), 159 Md. App. 123 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller (2004)
52 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 Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sheppard v. Maxwell
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Three purposes which serve to legitimatize warrantless police intrusions into the interior of an automobile following its seizure were listed: (1) protection of the police from danger; (2) protection of the police against claims and disputes over lost or stolen property; and (3) protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody. Inventory searches, therefore, are not conducted in order to discover evidence of crime. They are conducted in accordance with police departmental policy to list what is in police custody. Probable cause to seek a search warrant would be irrelevant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether an expert’s opinion will assist the trier of fact is a decision for the trial judge. "The general rule is that the allowance or disallowance of the testimony of expert witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless such ruling is clearly erroneous or there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Brown, supra at 11. In the case at bar, we agree with the appellant that the jury was entitled to the opinion of a qualified expert concerning the appellant’s psychological makeup in deciding whether to believe the defense that he was a passivist. See United States v. Staggs, 553 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1977). This type of testimony the trial court in the instant case allowed. The trial judge did not allow a conclusion to be admitted which was not supported by a reasonable medical certainty. The witness proferred that there "is no way in the world I can say he didn’t commit these [homicides] but I can say according to his lifestyle, this would be totally out of character.” In other words, the witness stated that he could not give an ultimate conclusion as to whether the appellant committed the homicides, but he could testify as to the appellant’s peaceful disposition. We can find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge when he allowed testimony concerning the psychological makeup of the appellant but not an ultimate conclusion, which the doctor admitted he was not competent t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““I have reviewed these articles, and for the most part do not find that they are prejudicial to the defendant in this in any event. The court does not feel that the defense has at this time shown that the pretrial publicity in and of itself has been so massive and widespread that it is clearly prejudicial, or that the publicity has been so inherently prejudicial that it saturated the community and that the remedial step of voir dire would be meaningless. Since the court does not find that pretrial publicity to be so massive and widespread and so inherently prejudicial, it is going to deny the motion at this point. However, according to what [the prosecutor] has told the court, Mr. Dobbins’ case is scheduled for trial in the very near future. And, if there are in fact articles generated in the local media as a result of that trial then, [defense counsel], you may wish to request the court to reconsider its decision. Additionally, during examination of jurors, if it appears that the prospective jurors would not be able to give Ms. Bailey a fair and impartial trial, then the court would reconsider. I would point out that the voir dire examination is usually a sufficient mechanism to assure that a person does obtain a fair and impartial trial despite the pretrial publicity. * * * * * * So as I said, there could be more information available to you gentlemen and it could be brought to the attention of the court. The court may reconsider, it could possibly change its decision. But ”
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.