140 Md. App. 1 - Schmitt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In assessing the performance prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, a court will indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The court must be highly deferential in reviewing counsel’s performance, in order to avoid second-guessing counsel’s assistance. Until proven otherwise, the court presumes that counsel’s representation was professionally competent, and that it derived not from error but from trial strategy. In Strickland , the Court explained: Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 231 Md. App. 490 - Barber v. State

2. “When a defendant raises an alibi defense, he is entitled to jury instructions that specify that the Government must bear the burden of persuasion on this element of the offense as well. The jury must be informed that, once a defendant has offered proof that he was not present at the time and place that the crime was committed, then the Government must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's alibi is not true, and that the defendant was in fact present at the scene when the crime was committed. If such specific instructions are not given when a defendant offers alibi evidence at trial, there is a likelihood that the jury will become confused about the burden of persuasion ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 592 - State v. Mann

3. “Any possible impeachment value of Ms. Churma’s PB J for theft under Rule 5-608(b) (“Impeachment by examination regarding the witness’s own prior conduct not resulting in conviction”) must satisfy the requirement that the conduct is probative of a character trait of untruthfulness. At the post-conviction hearing, the appellant offered no evidence regarding Ms. Churma’s conduct that formed the basis of the theft charge or how that conduct potentially would have impacted on Ms. Churma’s character for truthfulness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Md. App. 155 - Molter v. State