137 Md. App. 444 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Despite the wide latitude afforded attorneys in closing arguments, there are limits in place to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Degren, 352 Md. at 430 , 722 A.2d 887 ; see Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 413-15 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974). Nonetheless, not every improper comment requires reversal. Degren, 352 Md. at 430 , 722 A.2d 887 ; Hunt v. State, 321 Md. 387, 435 , 583 A.2d 218 (1990). Reversal is warranted only if “ ‘it appears that the remarks of the prosecutor actually misled or influenced the jury to the prejudice of the accused.’ ” Degren, 352 Md. at 431 , 722 A.2d 887 (quoting Jones, 310 Md. at 580 , 530 A.2d 743 ). This determination rests largely in the control and discretion of the presiding judge, and an appellate court should not reverse the trial court unless there has been an “ ‘abuse of discretion by the trial judge of a character likely to have injured the complaining party.’ ” Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 231 , 596 A.2d 1024 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 307 (1992) (quoting Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 413 , 326 A.2d 707 )(italics in original)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 Md. App. 330 - McCracken v. State