129 Md. App. 194 - Holt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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

2. “The case ... suffer[ed] from the same omission as the other cases cited. The trial court acted upon the suggestion by the State that one witness had been threatened by the defendants and could not be located for trial.... As the proponent of the closure motion, however, it was incumbent on the State to produce evidentiary support that [would have] provide[d] the basis for the court to construct a naiTowly tailored order to warrant closure.”

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