123 Md. App. 599 - Braxton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 63 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In construing the affidavit here, the issuing judge first had to infer that the targeted premises was [the defendant’s] residence, based on the street address on the face of the affidavit, coupled with the general assertion that criminals typically store fruits and instrumentalities of crime in their residences. Yet the affidavit contained absolutely no clue as to why the police believed [that the defendant] lived at the particular location identified in the affidavit and warrant application; [and] the affidavit failed to provide a factual basis for the claim that the targeted premises was the suspect’s residence.... [W]e hold that the mere identification in the affidavit of [the defendant’s] address, without even a single predicate fact showing the basis for the belief that [the defendant] resided at that address, did not establish probable cause to search that location. This is so even if there was otherwise every reason to believe that [the defendant] committed the armed robbery and harbored the fruits and instrumentalities wherever he may have lived.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Koen · 142 Md. App. 144 - Oesby v. State

2. “The declaration of a mistrial is an extraordinary act which should only be granted if necessary to serve the ends of justice.... The trial judge, who hears the entire case ... is in the best position to determine if the extraordinary remedy of a mistrial is appropriate. We will not reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial unless the defendant was so clearly prejudiced that the denial constituted an abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 237 Md. App. 439 - Bynes v. State · 127 Md. App. 536 - Reed v. Baltimore Life Insurance

3. “[ T]he quantum of facts needed to show the connection between the suspect and the purported place of occupancy is hardly daunting. Typically, an affiant includes an averment trying the suspect to the targeted location on the basis of surveillance, a check of utility records, verification with a landlord, an address from the phone book, or the like.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 77 - Herd v. State · 142 Md. App. 144 - Oesby v. State