Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2/24/1993
McCorkle v. State
Citations
- 619 A.2d 186
- 95 Md. App. 31
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that the crucial question for manifest necessity due to witness unavailability is whether the prosecution was aware of witness unavailability at the time jeopardy attaches
- explaining that the crucial question for manifest necessity due to witness unavailability is whether the prosecution was aware of witness unavailability at the time jeopardy attaches
- noting the missing witness was key, with \both parties ha[ving] made extensive references to this witness's expected testimony\ during their opening statements
- affirming trial judge's exercise of sound discretion in declaring mistrial when key witness became ill and did not appear during trial and State prosecution was unable to locate witness despite doing everything it could to get witness to court
- affirming trial judge's exercise of sound discretion in declaring mistrial when key witness became ill and did not appear during trial and State prosecution was unable to locate witness despite doing everything it could to get witness to court
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Moylan, Alpert, Fischer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. Frank StevensSixth Circuit· 1999-05-27· cited 28×
- State v. GutierrezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2011-10-25· cited 6×
- In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by BowmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 2019-05-17· cited 5×
- Hubbard v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-12-08· cited 1×
- State v. GutierrezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2012-01-25
Cites
35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1978-06-14· cited 4,912×
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 4,063×
- Green v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1957-12-16· cited 3,075×
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1978-02-21· cited 2,314×
- United States v. JornSupreme Court· 1971-01-25· cited 2,215×
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court· 1982-05-24· cited 2,097×
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court· 1824-03-23· cited 1,814×
- Wade v. HunterSupreme Court· 1949-04-25· cited 1,511×
- United States v. BallSupreme Court· 1896-05-25· cited 1,376×
- Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court· 1973-02-27· cited 1,368×
- Downum v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-04-22· cited 985×
- Richardson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1984-06-29· cited 873×
- Hudson v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1981-02-24· cited 769×
- Gori v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 679×
- Fong Foo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1962-03-19· cited 557×
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1891-12-21· cited 348×
- Thompson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1894-12-03· cited 247×
- Brock v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1953-02-02· cited 169×
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. MarshSupreme Court· 1981-11-30· cited 148×
- Bevan v. Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co.Supreme Court· 1974-02-25· cited 142×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.