13 Md. App. 134 - Hebron v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or attempted and that such person has committed or attempted to commit a felony whether or not in his presence or view.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. State of Maryland · 18 Md. App. 150 - Carter v. State

2. ““Coleman held that the assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing such as conducted in Maryland was constitutionally mandated. The rationale of the holding was set out in the opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in announcing the judgment of the Court. Noting that the principle of Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [, 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932),] and succeeding cases requires that the Court scrutinize any pretrial confrontation of the accused to determine whether the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself, he concluded that the guiding hand of counsel at the preliminary hearing was essential to protect the indigent accused against erroneous or improper prosecution. He spelled out the reasons, [Coleman, 399 U.S. at 9 , 90 S.Ct. at 2003 ]: ‘First, the lawyer’s skilled examination and cross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal weaknesses in the State’s case that may lead the magistrate to refuse to bind the accused over. Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State’s witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has ag”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fenner v. State

3. “Ordinarily it exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer, or of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious person in believing that a crime had been committed by the person arrested. The rule of probable cause is a non-technieal conception of a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, requiring less evidence for such belief than would justify conviction, but more evidence than that which would arouse a mere suspicion. Only the probability and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the standard for probable cause. ****** . in dealing with probable cause we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are factual and practical considerations of every day life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved. Radcliffe v. State, 6 Md. App. 285 [ 251 A.2d 11 ]. Compare Brown v. State, 5 Md. App. 367 [ 247 A.2d 745 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. State of Maryland