129 Md. App. 319 - Tharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The burden is on the complaining party to show both prejudice and error.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 353 - Rollins v. State · 235 Md. App. 299 - Lindsey v. State

2. “[THARP’S TRIAL ATTORNEY]: Uhm, your Honor indicated that so long as the State was continuing to object to my presence that I would not be permitted to sit in the courtroom, and your Honor asked [the State’s attorney] if he was still objecting. [The State’s attorney] at that time said, and I, if this isn’t a direct quote, it’s very close, he indicated, Trials are a chess game. Checkmate. Now, I’m not sure I know what that means, but I took that to mean that he had the upper hand; ... it was not going to do anything ... to jeopardize his case ..., an in his opportunity to get a conviction against [Tharp], He also said, as part of that same discussion that [Tharp’s] trial was coming up. That there would certainly be an advantage to my being in court. Then said that bit about it’s chess game. (Emphasis added).”

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

3. “The rule [5-615] also allows the court to exclude witnesses on motion of a party. In this case, the State did not move to exclude ... [Tharp’s attorney]. Instead, in ruling on . .. [Seller’s attorney’s] motion, the court deferred to the State’s position. Therefore, ... [Tharp’s attorney] was not properly excluded “upon the request of a party,” as provided in the rule. We note that, even if the State had moved to sequester ... [Tharp’s attorney] under Rule 5-615, granting such a motion would have been improper. As we have discussed, [Tharp’s attorney] was not named on the State’s witness list, and had just been effectively removed from the defense witness list. Therefore, he was no longer a witness subject to the rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tharp v. State