Legal Opinion

Diggs and Ramsey v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 12, 2009No. 110, 147, September Term, 2008PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBattaglia, J.

In this opinion, we are called upon to determine whether Steven Diggs and Damon Lamar Ramsey, Appellants, are *263entitled to new trials, because the judge who presided over their original proceedings acted like a co-prosecutor. It is clear in both of these cases that neither of the prosecutors presented the cases well, nor did the defense attorneys adequately represent their clients. Nevertheless, it is the presiding judge who is the subject of the questions presented. Diggs presents the following question:

1. Was Mr. Diggs deprived of a fair trial because the trial court failed to preserve an…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. In Re Murchison.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  4. State v. HutchinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  5. Conyers v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Newton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
  2. In Re Gloria H.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
  3. Simms v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  4. Handy v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  5. Steward v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2014

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API