Legal Opinion

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 3, 2006No. 121, September Term, 2004PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BELL, Chief Judge.

The dispositive issue in the case sub judiee is whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial as a result of a juror’s nondisclosure, during voir dire, of the fact that a member of that juror’s family was employed as a secretary in the State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”) that was prosecuting the defendant and when the relationship was not discovered until after the trial had been completed. This issue is one of first impression for this Court. A similar, but certainly not identical, issue has *102been considered by the Court of special Appeals, however. It was first addressed…

2Cases cited52 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Irvin v. DowdSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Owens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Moore v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  3. Barksdale v. WilkowskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. Nash v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  5. Wright v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009

18 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