that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.’ Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights provides, ‘That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges ... or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law of the land.’ The reference to ‘jury’ in our organic laws, refers to a jury as constituted under the common law, unless the contrary plainly appears. See State v. Kenney, 327 Md. 354, 361, 609 A.2d 337, 340 (1992); State v. Ledger, 175 Wis.2d 116, 499 N.W.2d 198, 202 (Ct.App. 1993) (citing State v. Gollmar, 32 Wis.2d 406, 145 N.W.2d 670, 671-72 (1966)). Cf. Bryan v. State Roads Comm’n, 356 Md. 4, 14, 736 A.2d 1057, 1061 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. State, 278 Md. 41, 53, 359 A.2d
recognizing the power of federal courts to decide cases is restricted by the cases and controversies clause of article iii holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases holding iowa civil liberties union and lawyers lacked standing to maintain action to challenge a supervisory order of the court pertaining to the trial of criminal cases  only defendants in the criminal cases had standing holding that the 1992 amendment to article 5 of the maryland declaration of rights permits a six person jury in all cases except criminal cases holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts