45 Md. App. 634 - Jacobs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 64 Md. App. 648 - Muir v. State (1985), Gray v. State (2002)
48 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 · Bruton v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Jackson v. Denno · Chambers v. Mississippi
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.
“In essence, evidentiary law is a set of sieves and devices that pass through to the fact finder data that is competent, relevant, and material but screen out all data that is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. The common law of evidence is interested fundamentally in the integrity of the fact-finding process ... The prime concern is trustworthiness, the reliability, the accuracy of the process---- $ $ * * With' respect to evidence procured by private persons, we ask the questions that are the concern of the common law of evidence: Is it competent?, Is it trustworthy?, Will it enhance the accuracy of the verdict?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is a residual sense, of course, in which the jury will consider voluntariness---- Part of the jury’s prerogative is to weigh all evidence and to decide how persuasive it is. * * * * In this regard, the assessment of the weight to be given a declaration against interest is no different from the assessment of the weight to be given any piece of evidence, exception to the hearsay rule or otherwise. The jury may always ask, “Was the utterance truly spontaneous?”; “Was the admission ambiguous?”; “Was the declaration truly against interest?”; “Did the interest threatened outweigh the benefit to be gained?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The trustworthiness in issue in this regard is the trustworthiness of the declaration, assuming it to have been made and to have been made in the form recounted from the witness stand. The trustworthiness of the witness who serves as the mere conduit for the out-of-court declaration is, on the other hand, tested by other devices such as the oath and cross-examination at the trial itself. All too frequently, we allow our distrust of the witness on the stand to be transmuted into a mistrust of the out-of-court declaration, and this frequently subconscious transfer serves only to blur analysis."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gray v. State
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.