15 Md. App. 198 - Conway v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘1. that the witness appears to have been so closely implicated in the defendant’s alleged criminal activities that the invocation by the witness of a claim of privilege when asked a relevant question tending to establish the offense charged will create an inference of the witness’ complicity, which will, in turn, prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury; ‘2. that the prosecutor knew in advance or had reason to anticipate that the witness would claim his privilege, or had no reasonable basis for expecting him to waive it, and therefore, called him in bad faith and for an improper purpose; ‘3. that the witness had a right to invoke his privilege; ‘4. that defense counsel made timely objection and took exception to the prosecutor’s misconduct; and ‘5. that the trial court refused or failed to cure the error by an appropriate instruction or admonition to the jury.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 72 Md. App. 493 - Adkins v. State

2. “. . Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty (except for the crime of treason and, in some jurisdictions, perjury) or it may be used in conjunction with direct evidence. It may corroborate other testimony and may be used to prove any element of the crime, such as the corpus delicti or the criminal agency of the accused. The law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.” (Footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Md. App. 678 - Robinson v. State

3. “[Bjecause of the elusive character of the privilege against self-incrimination [citation omitted] which may vary from question to question, the questions must be propounded to the witness on the stand on a one-by-one basis; the witness must then evaluate each question severally and decide, question by question, whether to assert his privilege or not. The trial judge must then decide on an individual question basis whether the privilege has been properly asserted or whether he, the judge, must compel the answer under threat of contempt. Conway v. State, 15 Md.App. 198, 219 , 289 A.2d 862, 873 (Md. 1972).”

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