Court of Appeals of Maryland· 5/25/1999

Robinson v. State

Citations

730 A.2d 181
354 Md. 287
1999 Md. LEXIS 258
1999 WL 343362

How courts have described this case

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

holding that criminal defendant's due process and confrontation rights required production of officers' statements to Internal Affairs Division for cross-examination purposes in a criminal proceeding
declaring that “[wjhile confidentiality does go to discoverability, it does not guarantee insulation of the confidential matter from disclosure.”
stating that, under Jencks 2 and Carr 3 a prosecutor is responsible for “ ‘all seemingly pertinent facts related to the charge which are known to the police department who represent the local subdivision that has jurisdiction to try the case’ ”
“While confidentiality does go to discoverability, it does not guarantee insulation of the confidential matter from disclosure. The confidentiality interest must be balanced!.]”
“In a jury trial, judging the credibility of witnesses is entrusted solely to the jury, the trier of fact; only the jury determines whether to believe any witnesses, and which witnesses to believe.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Eldridge, Rodowsky, Chasanow, Raker, Wilner, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

63 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.