Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 Md. App. 360 - Miles v. State

88 Md. App. 360 - Miles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Cook (1995), Landon v. Zorn (2005)

37 state decisions

160199120002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 144

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Adams v. Williams · Gerstein v. Pugh · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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.

  1. “With respect to all criminal trials or parts of trials ... an effective waiver of the defendant’s right to be present at every stage of the trial will not always require a personal waiver by the defendant. Where the right of confrontation is not implicated, and where there is involved no other right requiring intelligent and knowing action by the defendant himself for an effective waiver, a defendant will ordinarily be bound by the action or inaction of his attorney. [I]f the defendant himself does not affirmatively ask to be present at such occurrences or does not express an objection at the time, and if his attorney consents to his absence or says nothing regarding the matter, the right to be present will be deemed to have been waived.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the decision to excuse a juror and to seek an alternate in his or her place is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” 88 Md.App. at 373 , 594 A.2d at 1214 . . We note, however, that even these cases recognize that the defendant's”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]nstructing a jury on the undisputed law of the crime is improper whether it occurs prior to the introduction of any evidence or subsequent to the trial court's binding instructions,”
    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.