Mooney v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reaffirming authentication of digital video by circumstantial evidence and noting that “photographic manipulation, alterations and fabrications are nothing new, nor are such changes unique to digital imaging, although it might be easier in this digital age” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Reddick v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2024-10-31
• Lewis v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2024-11-06
• Campbell v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2025-10-02

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Fowler v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2018-04-18· cited 139×
• United States v. Vayner
  Second Circuit· 2014-10-03· cited 95×
• Griffin v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2011-04-28· cited 44×
• Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services v. Cole
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1996-03-12· cited 33×
• Sublet, Harris & Monge-Martinez v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2015-04-23· cited 30×
• Washington v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2008-12-12· cited 21×
• ARKHEEM J. LAMB v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-05-02· cited 12×
• State v. Sample
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2020-05-11· cited 10×
• Irwin Industrial Tool v. Pifer
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2022-08-15· cited 8×
• Washington v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2008-03-06· cited 5×
• Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Weinberg
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2024-02-21· cited 1×