125 Md. App. 684 - White 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. “a dangerous person”; “An argument that the community is concerned about the serious effect of a certain crime must be framed in such a way as to remind the jury of its duty to convict when the evidence supports conviction, and not for the jurors to place their own personal interests before their obligation to decide the issues on the evidence.”); Holmes v. State, 119 Md.App. 518, 526-27 , 705 A.2d 118, 122-23 , cert. denied, 350 Md. 278 , 711 A.2d 870 (1998) (the prosecutor, in a drug case, stated during closing argument,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Md. App. 444 - Williams v. State · Lee v. State

2. “There is a difference between commenting harshly about a defendant and commenting harshly about a defendant’s alleged criminal conduct. It is perfectly acceptable to condemn in severe language the details of the cruel crime of which the defendant is accused. But when a prosecutor’s argument asks the jury to scorn the defendant because of economic or social class, race, or appearance, those remarks stray from the roadway of permissible comment and cannot escape condemnation just because the law permits some vigorous advocacy. The opportunity during closing argument for attorneys to use eloquence, oratorical skills, illustrations, metaphors, anecdotes, and literary references does not provide a medium for the attorney improperly to arouse prejudice, intentionally or unintentionally.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 197 Md. App. 238 - McFadden and Miles v. State