State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “During the suppression hearing, defense counsel suggested to the court that she was attacking the authenticity of the warrant as well as its existence when she suggested that the warrant had “not [been] properly completed.” The issue sought to be raised by defense counsel by her protestations was not one concerning the contents or terms of the warrant but rather one of whether it was properly issued. That, to be sure, is a totally different type of evidentiary problem. That is an authentication problem and not a “Best Evidence Rule” problem, and dispensing with authentication does not necessarily dispense with production, just as dispensing with production does not dispense with authentication. See 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence (Chadboum rev. 1972) §§ 1187-88 p. 430. The authentication of a search warrant, that is, the proof of its valid issuance, may be proved by evidence other than the production of the document itself, such as the proffered testimony of the police officer who served the warrant. 6 This type of problem has nothing to do with the “Best Evidence Rule,” which is concerned only with the content or terms of the writing, not with the validity of its issuance. See Thompson, 62 Md.App. at 210 n. 2, 488 A.2d 995 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Md. App. 501 - Thompson v. State

2. “In the instant case neither the statute nor the rules were offended. The “duplicate” original submitted to the trial court was, for the purpose of the “Best Evidence Rule, ” no different than the original itself Professor McClain notes that “in most circumstances, a duplicate copy made by a machine, such as a photocopier, -will be admissible to the same extent as the original.” McClain, supra, at § 1001.1 p. 523,; see also Hartford v. Scarlett Harbor, 109 Md.App. 217, 264 , 674 A.2d 106 (1996), aff'd, 346 Md. 122 , 695 A.2d 153 (1997) (“The photocopy of the amendment, in turn, was admissible under the exception to the best evidence rule for photographic duplicates.’ ”); Cicoria v. State, 89 Md.App. 403, 425 , 598 A.2d 771 (1991), aff'd, 332 Md. 21 , 629 A.2d 742 (1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 136 Md. App. 458 - Herbert v. State

3. “Here, the appellee presented no justification as to why the “duplicate original” should not have been admitted. He failed to show, as both the rule and the statute require, that either (1) a genuine question existed as to the warrant’s , authenticity ... or (2) it would have been unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Under the “Best Evidence Rule,” the photocopy of the bench warrant was admissible to the same extent as the original. If applicable, the “Best Evidence Rule” was satisfied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 136 Md. App. 458 - Herbert v. State