14 Md. App. 689 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... does not define the circumstances under which a juror shall “become unable or disqualified” to perform his duties and each case must stand on its own facts. Though the directive of the Maryland Rule—“shall replace jurors”—is couched in mandatory terms, it is obvious that the word “shall” as used therein is directory. Thus, the substitution vel non of a supernumerary for a regular juror lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Such an exercise of discretion will not be dis turbed on appeal unless arbitrary and abusive in its application.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cook · 123 Md. App. 558 - Hayes v. State

2. “"Upon appeal a party assigning error in the instructions may not assign as of right an error unless (1) the particular portion of the instructions given or the particular omission therefrom or the particular failure to instruct was distinctly objected to before the jury retired to consider its verdict and (2) the grounds of objection were stated at that time. Ordinarily no other error will be considered by the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals, but the appellate court, either of its own motion or upon the suggestions of a party may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to as provided by section f of this Rule."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 34 Md. App. 206 - Williams v. State

3. ““At common law, according to the established precedents, when, during a trial, a defect in jurors occurred because of the death, illness, or misconduct of a juror or other cause necessitating his discharge, the practice was to discharge the entire jury and begin de novo by forming a new jury panel. Eleven of the twelve discharged jurors were immediately recalled, an alternate juror was seated, replacing the excused juror, thus completing the twelve. The new jury was then impaneled de novo, allowing the full number of challenges with respect to the eleven jurors recalled, as well as with respect to the new juror.””

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