Legal Opinion

State v. Hart

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 19, 2016No. 74/15PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Renico v. LettSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  3. Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Gori v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. Dorsey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Sabisch v. MoyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
  2. Sayles v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  3. Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023
  4. Carroll v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2026
  5. Mason v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2024

6 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