163 Md. App. 22 - Kang v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And did she tell you how she got the scar? [PASTOR LEE:] Yes. [PROSECUTOR:] What did she tell you? [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Objection, Your Honor. That is going to call for hearsay. [PROSECUTOR:] Your Honor, I offer it as a prior consistent statement. THE COURT: Hold on a second. I’ll overrule and allow him to answer. [PROSECUTOR:] What did she tell you about how she got the scar? [PASTOR LEE:] Yes. She told me that what happened to her of that scar—one day, you know, her husband called [her] to their bedroom— [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Objection, Your Honor. That is clearly hearsay. 5k 5H * [PROSECUTOR:] Let me try to narrow the question ... What did she tell you about how that injury was inflicted? [PASTOR LEE:] Okay. Mr. Kang asked her to follow him up— [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] We are going to offer a continuing objection to what she told him and how she got it. This isn’t being asked in relation to what anybody else said or anything else consistent. THE COURT: Well— [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] We’ll do that for the record. THE COURT: Pastor, if she told you specifically how the scar on her neck occurred, I will allow you to answer that.... [PROSECUTOR:] Pastor, can you please tell us what Mrs. Kang told you about how the scar on her neck occurred? [PASTOR LEE:] Her husband told her to come downstairs, which she did, and there was a rope hanging from the ceiling. And she was told to climb up to the step, which she did, thinking that it was some sort of play. But, as soon as she wen”

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

2. “At the trial, Mrs. Kang told of a long history of physical abuse during her fifteen years of marriage to Mr. Kang. She related that in January of 2003, she traveled to Korea to be with her dying father. After her father’s death, Mrs. Kang returned to her home in Montgomery County in early February. Upon her return, Mr. Kang began to accuse her of having an affair. According to Mrs. Kang, in the early hours of February 8, 2003, after an evening of arguing about the suspected infidelity, Mr. Kang ordered his wife to write out a suicide note as he dictated it. He then escorted her to the basement of their home, where he compelled her to stand on a stool as he tied a nylon rope around her neck. She testified that she was compliant because she thought her husband was trying to humiliate and frighten her, and she knew from experience that resistance could lead to additional physical abuse. She saw her husband kick the stool out from under her feet. As her body dropped and the rope tightened around her neck, she saw her husband walking away before she passed out. Mrs. Kang testified that when she regained consciousness, she found her husband hovering over her, begging her forgiveness. He carried her upstairs to a bedroom and rubbed Vaseline on her neck. He did not call for medical or other assistance on the morning of the hanging. Two days later, Mr. Kang took his wife to see Dr. Daniel Kim. Mr. Kang did virtually all of the talking to the doctor. Mrs. Kang wore a scarf around her n”

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

3. “[PROSECUTOR]: ... [Defense Counsel] had indicated that his client is satisfied. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. While [the court was] recessed, I spoke to [the interpreter] and my client and my client is very satisfied that [this interpreter] can do the job. There apparently had been some problems in the past with other interpreters. [This interpreter] was not one of them and my client is prepared to be voir dired by Your Honor just to make sure that the State’s concerns and my concerns are covered and that he is confident with [the interpreter]. THE COURT: Very well. Mr. Kang, let me ask you. It is critically important that you understand everything that is said at this time and that you be able to fully participate in this trial whether that involves discussing matters with your counsel, understanding the testimony or testifying at this trial if you choose to do that. What I want to do is I want to be absolutely sure that you are satisfied with the services of [this interpreter] as the interpreter and that you are comfortable with your ability to communicate with him and understand through him what has been said at this trial. Have you had an opportunity to discuss this matter with [the interpreter] this morning? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Are you satisfied with [this interpreter’s] services as an interpreter? THE DEFENDANT: I am satisfied. THE COURT: Are you satisfied with [this interpreter] serving as the interpreter that you will be able to understand what is bei”

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