State v. Hart
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtGreene, J.
In this case, we address a defendant’s right to be present at trial as it pertains to communications with a jury foreperson during the deliberation phase of a trial as well as a trial court’s declaration of a mistrial on the ground of manifest necessity. Kenneth Hart (“Hart”), the defendant, was present throughout the two-day trial. On the second day of trial, after closing arguments and the administration of jury instructions, jury deliberations began at 7 p.m. After approximately three and a half hours of deliberation, the trial court received a jury note. The judge informed the prosecutor…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Gori v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Dorsey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sabisch v. MoyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
- Sayles v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023
- Carroll v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2026
- Mason v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2024
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.