Tyler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Mr. Eiland, did you shoot Jay Bias? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. * * * * * * [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Mr. Eiland, are you the same Mr. Eiland that testified in a previous proceeding? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I would ask the Court to direct the witness to answer the question. THE COURT: Mr. Eiland, I’m going to order you to answer the questions that have been directed to you.... [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Mr. Eiland, did you shoot Jay Bias? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Why can’t you answer that question? [EILAND]: I can’t. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Were you in the car when Jay Bias was shot? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. * * * * * * [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Were you in the Prince George’s Mall on December 4,1990? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And why can’t you answer that question? [EILAND]: Because, I can’t. [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Were you driving a green Mercedes that was occupied with Jerry Tyler at the Prince George’s Mall on December 4th, 1990? [EILAND]: I can’t answer that question. * * * * * * [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, at this time I would request the Court to direct the witness that he must answer the questions. THE COURT: Mr. Eiland, you understood the questions? [EILAND]: Yes. THE COURT: You understood that you have previously testified under oath in this courthouse concerning the issues and the fact”

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

2. ““(b) Hearsay Exceptions.—The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: (1) Former Testimony.—Testimony given as a witness in any action or proceeding or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of any action or proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross or redirect examination.””

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

3. “If the ruling was correct for the reasons advanced by the trial judge, it will be affirmed. If it turns out to have been correct for any other reason, it will also be affirmed. We are not scrutinizing the trial court’s reasoning in arriving at his decision. We are scrutinizing the naked decision itself. State v. Breeden, 333 Md. 212 , 227 n. 5, 634 A.2d 464 (1993); Robeson v. State, 285 Md. 498, 502 , 403 A.2d 1221 (1979); Aubinoe v. Lewis, 250 Md. 645, 649 , 244 A.2d 879 (1968).”

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