147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the issue is voluntariness, rather than Miranda compliance ... the failure of a defendant to testify almost forecloses any chance of prevailing. ... The voluntariness of a defendant’s response to possible pressures ... is very subjective. Only the defendant can truly tell us what was going on in the defendant’s mind. Without such testimony, there is usually no direct evidence of involuntariness.... [Here, the defendant] asks us to guess what was in his head. He actually asks us to second-guess [the circuit court] for not having guessed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 152 Md. App. 548 - Uzzle v. State · 205 Md. App. 93 - Warren v. State

2. “"Keeping in the forefront of the mind the appreciation that testimonial privileges are disfavored, rather than favored, and are to be strictly construed, rather than liberally construed, is important because that decided 'tilt' may well be dispositive in close or ambiguous cases. As this Court observed in Ellison v. State, 65 Md. App. [321] at 326-27, 500 A.2d [650 at 652 (1985) ] : '[A] brief word is in order as to why it is important for us to determine whether testimonial privileges are in favor or disfavor. In an otherwise close case for the application of a testimonial privilege, a case that could plausibly go either way, the "tilt" to be taken by the court is critically important. If testimonial privileges are determined to be in favor, our "tilt" toward finding the privilege applicable could well be decisive in that direction. If , on the other hand, testimonial privileges are determined to be in disfavor, our "tilt" toward finding the privilege inapplicable could well be decisive in the other direction.' "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 96 - Sewell v. State

3. “Keeping in the forefront of the mind the appreciation that testimonial privileges are disfavored, rather than favored, and are to be strictly construed, rather than liberally construed, is important because that decided 'tilt' may well be dispositive in close or ambiguous cases. As this Court observed in Ellison v. State, 65 Md. App. [321] at 326-27, 500 A.2d [650 at 652 (1985) ] : '[A] brief word is in order as to why it is important for us to determine whether testimonial privileges are in favor or disfavor. In an otherwise close case for the application of a testimonial privilege, a case that could plausibly go either way, the "tilt”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 96 - Sewell v. State