Skip to main content

State v. Gross

Citations

  • 760 A.2d 725
  • 134 Md. App. 528
  • 2000 Md. App. LEXIS 171

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that DNA PCR evidence not covered by statute and requiring the evidence be subjected to the inquiry outlined in Reed
  • holding that “the failure to anticipate a possible change in the local law of evidence or to push for such a change is not an instance of counsel’s representation [falling] below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
  • admonishing that persuasive federal law may be looked to, but not necessarily to the exclusion of independent judgment and analysis by Maryland courts
  • admonishing that persuasive federal law may be looked to, but not necessarily to the exclusion of independent judgment and analysis by Maryland courts
  • holding that the appropriate relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is the “awarding of a belated or new appeal,” noting that the relief “should be tailored to fit the deficiency” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
  • “[C]ounsel is under no duty to anticipate a change in the case law” because trial counsel’s performance is judged “upon the situation as it existed at the time of trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moylan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

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.