7 Md. App. 225 - Watson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1984
13 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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California · Foster v. California
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Manifestly, it is not the obligation of the State to put before the jury evidence of a pretrial identification .... The pretrial confrontation may, of course, be brought out by the accused on cross-examination of the State’s witness making an in-court identification at the trial so as to show the trier of fact the circumstances under which the pretrial confrontation was held. Evidence so elicited by the accused affects the weight of the identification evidence produced by the State, as well as the credibility of the identifying witness. See Bailey v. State, [ 6 Md. App. 496 , 252 A. 2d 85 (1969)], Smith and Samuels v. State, supra.””
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.