GRAY

v.

MARYLAND

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Bamberger, 456 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir. 1972)
  …stimony of one eyewitness is sufficient for the purpose of identification of the perpetrator of a crime.” United States v. Levi, 405 F. 2d 380, 382 (4th Cir. 1968). See also United States v. Johnson, 412 F. 2d 753, 756 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 944, 90 S.Ct. 959, 25 L.Ed.2d 124 (1970); 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 2034, at 259. . “Pistols, fruits of tlie crime, clothing, parts of the body of the person killed, everything pertaining to the crime which will aid the jury in its consideration of the (…
• Sumpter v. DeGROOTE, 552 F.2d 1206 (7th Cir. 1977)
  …the “judicial tendency or trend towards recognition of the logic of appellate direction for the entry of judgment of acquittal if the state fails to prove its case in the trial court.” Gray v. State, 254 Md. 385, 255 A. 2d 5, 9 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 944, 90 S.Ct. 961, 25 L.Ed.2d 126 (1970). . Because Sumpter was not given a trial de novo, none of the other justifications advanced for the Ball rule would be of help to the State in this case. See note 14 supra. Though the much-criticized “waiver” t…