4 Md. App. 550 - Smith v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2000
2 district · 5 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 · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · 3 Md. App. 11 - Boone v. State · 1 Md. App. 46 - Ross v. Warden · 2 Md. App. 716 - McCracken 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that he did not receive a fair trial because of unfavorable publicity through newspapers and other news media, and that the Judge was prejudiced; (2) that the State’s Attorney had made certain remarks in his opening statement to the jury which were not borne out by the evidence and which prejudiced the jury; (3) that the court erred in allowing photographs of the deceased victim to be admitted into evidence; (4) that the court should have granted a separate jury trial on the question of his insanity; that the issue of insanity, as well as the issue of guilt or innocence, were both submitted to the same jury, which jury, in determining his guilt, had overlooked the issue of insanity; (5) that the Director of Clifton T. Perkins Hospital and the representative of the Department of Mental Hygiene were prejudiced in their testimony; (6) that the evidence admitted at his trial was obtained through illegal search and seizure and was, therefore, improperly admitted into evidence; (7) that the court erroneously admitted into evidence his confession in the absence of proper warning, contrary to the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ; (8) that the Anne Arundel County Police Department had withheld pertinent information, which if presented, would have been sufficient to have placed considerable doubt on the reliability of certain witnesses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh allegations are deemed to have been waived as they could have been raised on direct appeal, there being no special circumstances shown to excuse the failure to raise them and the presumption that the applicant intelligently and knowingly failed to make them not being rebutted.”
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.