89 Md. App. 25 - Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Klauenberg v. State (1999), Williams v. State (1992)
57 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Smith v. Phillips · Remmer v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Turner v. Louisiana · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he potency of the Sixth Amendment [and Article 21] right to a fair trial relies on the promise that a defendant's fate will be determined by an impartial fact finder who depends solely on the evidence and argument introduced in open court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Maryland follows Lord Mansfield’s rule and thus “it is well settled that a juror [in Maryland] cannot be heard to impeach his own verdict.” Harford Sands, 320 Md. at 145 , 577 A.2d 7 (quoting Wernsing, 298 Md. at 411 , 470 A.2d 802 ). Here, the problem of post-verdict impeachment is not at issue because the voir dire of the affected jurors occurred prior to the delivery of a verdict. In other words, the trial court’s examination of the jurors and conclusion that they would not be prejudiced by the extrinsic information will not be disregarded on the grounds that the voir dire violated Maryland’s strict verdict impeachment prohibition. Moreover, notwithstanding Maryland’s very strict prohibition against juror impeachment, courts which have looser guidelines regarding post-verdict impeachment yield helpful guidance regarding when extrinsic evidence will be found sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is well established in Maryland that in determining whether jury contact is prejudicial, a trial court must balance the `probability of prejudice from the face of the extraneous matter in relation to the circumstances of the particular case.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.