Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Md. App. 99 - Gaskins v. State

7 Md. App. 99 - Gaskins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
September 1991
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 1991 · most notably 36 Md. App. 459 - Tripp v. State (1977), 15 Md. App. 478 - Peterson v. State (1972)

34 state decisions

2901969197019801990decided

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 Watson v. State · 3 Md. App. 11 - Boone v. State · Veney v. State · Vincent v. State · 1 Md. App. 556 - Tipton 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . . The reason for the rule requiring the testimony of an accomplice to be corroborated is that it is the testimony of a person admittedly contaminated with guilt, who admits his participation in the crime for which he particularly blames the defendant, and it should be regarded with great suspicion and caution, because otherwise the life or liberty of an innocent person might be taken away by a witness who makes the accusation either to gratify his malice or to shield himself from punishment, or in the hope of receiving clemency by turning State’s evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The refusal of the trial judge to inform the jury who, in law, are, and who are not, accomplices . . . and the law with reference to the necessity for the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony constitutes reversible error. Testimony of an accomplice should be closely scrutinized and juries should be cautioned, upon request, in the form of an advisory instruction that conviction cannot stand on accomplice’s testimony alone, but that corroboration is necessary as to material points.””
    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.