Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 MD 476 - Kendall v. State

Kendall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Benton v. Maryland · United States v. DiFrancesco · United States v. Scott · United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Crist v. Bretz

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The federal Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment. [] That protection is also a fundamental part of Maryland common law. See State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617, 629-30 , 810 A.2d 964 (2002). In a nonjury trial, jeopardy ordinarily attaches when the first witness is sworn, Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 , 37 n.15, 98 S.Ct. 2156 , 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), although in some circumstances it may attach without the appearance of a witness if the defendant is “subjected to the risk of conviction.” Daff v. State, 317 Md. 678, 688-89 , 566 A.2d 120 (1989) (acquittal following failure of prosecution witnesses to appear for trial). For each offense for which the defendant is thereafter acquitted, both the federal Constitution and State common law prohibit a second prosecution. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 796 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) (federal Constitution); Gianiny v. State, 320 Md. 337, 342 , 577 A.2d 795 (1990) (Maryland common law). “If the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair,” even if the acquittal was based on an “egregiously erroneous foundation ” United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 129 , 101 S.Ct. 426 , 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); see also Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 , 82 S.Ct. 671 , 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962).[] Nor are double jeo”
    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.