52 Md. App. 308 - Epps v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2003
22 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Santobello v. New York · Ross v. State · State v. Frye · Lewis 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is as fundamental as the maxim — innocent until proven guilty. It is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, U.S. ConstAmend. VI,[ 7 ] applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment,[ 8 ] and by the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Arts. 5, 21 and 24.[ 9 ] However, this right may be waived, as when the defendant pleads guilty ... or elects to be tried by a judge. ‘To satisfy constitutional due process standards, the waiver of the right to a jury trial must constitute an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““More importantly, bargaining over the waiver of a jury trial is not now addressed by any procedural rule in this State. The fundamental right to a jury trial may be waived under Md. Rule 735 [now Md. Rule 4-246]; if it is to be subject to barter between a defendant and the State, the trial judge should be apprised fully of the nature and extent of the bargain. (Whether it may properly be the subject of barter, a question we do not resolve, should be carefully considered by the bench and bar.)” [Alteration added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State“(c) Prejudicial Joinder. — If it appears that any party will be prejudiced by the joinder for trial of counts, charging documents, or defendants, the court may, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, order separate trials of counts, charging documents or defendants, or grant any other relief as justice requires.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Echols 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.