Legal Opinion

State v. Santiago

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 21, 2009No. 14 September Term 2009PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GREENE, Judge.

Hearken to your verdict as the Court hath recorded it. You say that [name of defendant] is guilty (or not guilty) of the matter wherefore he or she stands indicted, and so say you all.

As a matter of protocol, hearkening has been the standard practice in Maryland for more than 100 years, when a jury renders a verdict in a criminal case. Essentially, hearkening requires the trial court to inquire in open court, before the jurors are discharged, whether the jury agrees with the verdict just announced by the foreperson. See Givens v. State, 76 Md. 485, 487-88, 25 A. 689, 689 (1893)…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ross v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  2. Heinze v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
  3. Ford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1859
  4. State v. McKayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  5. Glickman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Givens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  2. Colvin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  3. Alford v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  4. Ogundipe v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  5. Santiago v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018

15 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