Skip to main content

Wilson v. State

Citations

  • 768 A.2d 675
  • 363 Md. 333
  • 2001 Md. LEXIS 102

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that \the `likely damage' of the State's suppression of evidence in this case `is best understood by taking the word of the prosecutor... during closing argument.'\
  • recognizing that “the ‘likely damage’ of the State’s suppression of evidence in this case ‘is best understood by taking the word of the prosecutor ... during closing argument.’ ”
  • concluding that the newly discovered evidence was material, because “had the evidence been disclosed, there is a substantial possibility that the verdict in the Petitioner’s case would have been different”
  • noting that the testimony of a codefendant witness provided the “only direct link between Petitioner and the crime”
  • noting that the testimony of a codefendant witness provided the \only direct link between Petitioner and the crime\
  • stating that cross-examination of a witness regarding inducement “to testify does not substitute for adequate disclosure”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Eldridge, Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Rodowsky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

30 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.