Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 11/5/2007

Muhammad v. State

Citations

934 A.2d 1059
177 Md. App. 188
2007 Md. App. LEXIS 142

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing defendant’s witness from testifying because of the defendant’s belated disclosure of the witness
Rule 5-802.1(c) “deals with the pinpointing of a particular individual, such as picking someone out of a line-up or photo array”
to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses in one’s defense, “a defendant must show that the testimony in issue ‘would be both admissible and helpful to the defense’ ”
“The process for obtaining the attendance of out-of-state witnesses is spelled out in Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-303(a), the Maryland Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murphy, Barbera, Moylan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

91 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.