10 Md. App. 300 - State v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 59 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Nor does a trial judge possess power under the present state of Maryland law, either inherently or by statute or rule of court, to summarily dismiss a valid indictment prior to trial over the State’s Attorney’s objection upon the ground that there has been a “lack of prosecution” not amounting to the denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial____ [T]he law of Maryland, while recognizing the denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial as a valid ground for the court’s dismissal of an indictment, does not countenance such a dismissal upon the court’s own motion for mere “unnecessary delay” or “in furtherance of justice.” [ 5 ] [T]o dismiss a valid indictment of a grand jury prior to trial as a means to evidence the court's dissatisfaction with the prosecutor’s pretrial performance, and particularly his failure to properly summons State witnesses, is simply not an appropriate sanction to be applied in such circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gonzales · Gonzales v. State

2. ““.... [T]he office of State’s Attorney is not a branch of the judiciary, nor is it directly subject to its supervison. See United States v. Shaw, 226 A.2d 366 (Dist. Ct. App. D.C.). Under the Constitution and laws of Maryland, the State’s Attorney is a constitutional officer elected by the people and entrusted by them with the prosecution of persons accused of crime. The office is one of great dignity and commands great respect.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lykins · 66 Md. App. 434 - In Re Darryl D.

3. ““It would appear that in Maryland the powers and duties formerly vested in the common law office of Attorney General with respect to criminal prosecutions at the trial level passed to the State’s Attorney. While the State’s Attorney was possessed of no common law powers of his own, we think it the obvious intention of the Legislature in broadly providing by statute that the State’s Attorney ‘prosecute and defend, on the part of the State, all cases in which the State may be interested’ to invest that constitutional officer with the same powers respecting the prosecution of criminal cases as were formerly possessed by the Attorney General at common law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Murphy v. Yates