146 Md. App. 83 - Jenkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Impermissibly suggestive police misbehavior ... is not a category that embraces every variety of police misbehavior.... To do something impermissibly suggestive is not to pressure or to browbeat a witness to make an identification but only to feed the witness clues as to which identification to make. THE SIN IS TO CONTAMINATE THE TEST BY SLIPPING THE ANSWER TO THE TESTEE. All other improprieties are beside the point.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morales v. State · 219 Md. App. 234 - Wallace v. State

2. “"Finally, we agree with the State that the appellant did not preserve the argument that the trial court should have granted him a new trial to protect a positive public image for the criminal justice system. In his ‘Supplemental Memorandum and Request to Strike Testimony,’ ... the appellant cited two newspaper articles about the case. Then, at the ... hearing on the motion for new trial, the appellant suggested in argument to the court that McDonald may have read the articles and, realizing that ‘there was essentially an uproar over that type of contact during the course of trial between an agent of the State and a juror,' may have 'attempt[edj to minimize or disregard the comments by the detective.' At no point below did the appellant argue that public controversy or the public’s reaction over the contact between Pikulski and McDonald warranted granting a new trial. 'Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.’ "Even if this issue had been raised below, the appellant would fare no better. To be sure, in a general sense, how the public perceives the criminal justice system affects whether defendants receive fair and impartial trials. We are dealing in this appeal with a particular defendant and a particular trial, however, and the specific question whether an instance of improper contact between a witness for the State and a juror, during the trial, was prejudicia”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. State

3. “"As we have explained, the trial court also rejected the appellant’s argument that McDonald’s positive credibility assessment of Pikulski based on their improper contact had prejudiced him by in turn enhancing his view of the entire police department. The court reasoned that the mere fact that McDonald may have been more inclined to believe Pikulski after spending time with her at the religious retreat did not reasonably support a finding that he would favor the police force’s version of how their investigation was conducted over the appellant’s. As the court pointed out, there was nothing about the nature of the contact between Pikulski and McDonald that would have led McDonald to view Pikulski as a representative of the entire police force or to generalize his view of her character to the police force as a whole. This reasoning is sound and supported by logic. "In addition, the appellant's argument is belied by the strategy he followed at trial. As noted above, the defense urged the jurors to believe Pikulski’s testimony, apparently without any concern that their doing so would have the spillover’ effect of making the police force's version of the investigation more believable than the appellant’s version. The defense would not have adopted a strategy to tout Pikulski’s credibility to the jury if the strategy was likely to harm its ‘sloppy police investigation’ defense theory.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jenkins v. State