121 Md. App. 364 - Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 48 - Walker v. State · 129 Md. App. 194 - Holt v. State

2. ““Indeed, the nature of the evidence presented certainly gives rise to the conclusion that the actions of appellant— assuming them to be true as we must — were perverse, to say the least. When viewed, however, in the context of the totality of the prosecutor’s closing argument, given such odious offenses, it is ironic that resort to excessive appeals to passion are needed to secure a conviction when the nature of the charges and the evidence adduced, without embellishment, is inherently inflammatory, albeit properly so. The right to a fair trial and the search for the truth, however, should not be hampered or obfuscated by extreme appeals to passion calculated to inflame the jury. “When the reference to the silent screams and ‘pervert’ are considered in conjunction until the characterization of appellant as ‘an animal,’ we believe the prosecutor, in her zeal, exceeded the bounds of proper comment. Not only is it inappropriate to refer to a defendant in a criminal case as ‘an animal,’ it may be argued that such strategy, in some instances, could be counterproductive should the jury view the State as engaging in a personal contest with the defendant. It is incumbent upon the People’s representative to maintain an air of dignity and stay above the frey.””

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

3. “It is incumbent upon the trial judge to make more than a general finding that all children suffer trauma when testifying or, as in this case, not to encroach upon the defendant’s right of confrontation by clearing the couxtroom of all of the defendant’s family members without conducting an examination to ascertain the accuracy or validity of the State’s proffer. We hold that, in the absence of such evidence, we cannot determine from this record whether the trial judge’s order was narrowly tailored to the exigencies of the case at hand and, as a consequence thereof, the court abused its discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Md. App. 601 - Wilson v. State