85 Md. App. 355 - Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (1995), 14 Cal. 4th 367 - Cowan v. Superior Court (1996)
37 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 Bruton v. United States · Commissioner v. Engle · Texas v. Louisiana · Tamotsu Tanaka v. Creditors' Committee 1 · Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is no doubt but that the court fully apprised the jury of its obligation not to use the co-conspirators' testimony to support a guilty verdict. It did so on more than one occasion and, on each occasion, in a detailed fashion. There is, moreover, nothing in the verdict itself which suggests that the court's instructions were not heeded. Indeed, appellant does not point to any concrete evidence to that effect; he merely speculates, given the complexity of the task with which it was charged, that the jury could not possibly have discharged that task appropriately. That, of course, is totally insufficient. On the contrary, when one considers that the jury is presumed to be able to, and in fact will, follow curative instructions, it becomes manifest that there was no error."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Spain v. State““This Rule [the comparable rule] makes clear that the plea of limitation is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded specially. It, and its predecessors, ... have been so interpreted. Failure specially to plead limitations within the time set forth in the Rule results in a waiver of the plea. Because the plea is waivable, it necessarily follows that it is not jurisdictional. “Because appellant did not timely raise limitations in the court below, the defense is waived.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when curative instructions are given, [which] it is presumed ... the jury can and will follow....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Spain 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.