Hutchins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 4-263(b)(4) is based on the recognition that the prosecutor is not always able to determine what is exculpatory or what is material to the defense. It avoids trial by ambush. If an agent of the State has consulted an expert, the defendant is entitled to disclosure of that expert’s conclusion. This disclosure obligation is easy to satisfy. It relieves the State of any obligation to determine what conclusions are exculpatory or material to the defense. It is limited to disclosure of “any ... oral or written reports by (the expert) ... not the sum and substance of the (the expert’s) proposed trial testimony.” Moreover, it is applicable only to conclusions of experts who have actually been “consulted.” A consultation involves a request by the State that the expert perform some task in order to reach a conclusion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 Md. App. 259 - CANELA AND PEREZ v. State · 196 Md. App. 494 - Smith v. State

2. “(b) Disclosure upon request. Upon request of the defendant, the State’s Attorney shall: (4) Reports or statements of experts. Produce and permit the defendant to inspect and copy all written reports or statements made in connection with the action by each expert consulted by the State, including the results of any physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison, and furnish the defendant with the substance of any such oral report and conclusion....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 Md. App. 259 - CANELA AND PEREZ v. State · Hutchins v. State

3. ““As appellant’s trial counsel pointed out in his opening statement, the documentation that would be introduced during the defendant’s case was indeed ‘bogus.’ During appellant’s cross examination, he conceded that, as a general rule, auto dealers do not conduct business at shopping center parking lots. He also expressed surprise that an odometer reading did not appear on any of the forms that had been introduced during his direct examination. Appellant was simply not prejudiced by opinions that were essentially consistent with his testimony.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hutchins v. State