Legal Opinion

Love v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 26, 1993No. 919, September Term, 1992PublishedCited by 33 opinions

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

  1. Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  2. Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  3. Johnson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
  4. In Re Petition for Writ of ProhibitionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
  5. State v. Devers and WebsterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Gray v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. Argyrou v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
  3. Campbell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  4. Jeffries v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Baker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002

28 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