Love v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
MOYLAN, Judge.
Every conceivable wrong occurring in the course of a criminal trial does not necessarily give rise to a corresponding remedy. A fortiori, it does not always trigger the particular remedy invoked by the defendant who has arguably suffered the wrong. The Motion for New Trial is one of the post-trial remedies. It is by no means, however, a never-failing panacea, available whenever and however outraged justice may beckon. It is designed to correct some, but not all, flaws that may have marred a trial. It is limited, moreover, by rigid filing deadlines and other formal constraints.
The…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
- Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- Johnson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- In Re Petition for Writ of ProhibitionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- State v. Devers and WebsterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Gray v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Argyrou v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Campbell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Jeffries v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Baker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.