8 Md. App. 243 - Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1990 · most notably Cunningham v. State (1989), 16 Md. App. 83 - Bailey v. State (1972)
2 district · 25 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 · 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our holding is in accord with the rationale of Baker v. State, 3 Md. App. 251 and Hernandez v. State, 7 Md. App. 355 . In Baker the contention that the lineup was unfairly conducted was ‘seemingly based on the fact that [the accused] was dressed in the same clothing, except for a different hat,’ when he was observed at the time of the commission of the crime. We noted that the question was not raised below, invoking Md. Rule 1085, but found that the lineup was not so conducted as to affront the accused’s constitutional rights as we were satisfied from the record that the identification by the witness was ‘not alone or primarily on the basis of the clothing he was wearing in the lineup.’ 3 Md. App. at 254 . In Hernandez the accused contended that the pre-trial identification procedure was constitutionally tainted because he was the only person in the lineup wearing a blue plaid shirt, this item constituting the basis upon which the identification was made. We held that the fact that the accused appeared in the lineup in the shirt did not of itself violate due process of law, noting that the lineup occurred a few hours after the commission of the crime, that the accused was placed in the lineup wearing the clothing in which he was arrested, and that the record did not disclose that prior to the lineup the police had knowledge of the peculiar significance of the blue plaid shirt in the witness’ prospective identification. 7 Md. App. at 361-362 .5 And see Presley v. State, 224 M”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson 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.