166 Md. App. 645 - Janey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Conversely, the mere fact that a witness denies any difficulty in making cross-racial identifications should not deter the trial judge from considering giving such an instruction, particularly if, in the language of the [State v.] Cromedy[, 158 N.J. 112 , 727 A.2d 457 (1999)] court, “identification is a critical issue in the case, and [the] eyewitness’s cross-racial identification is not corroborated by other evidence giving it independent reliability.” 727 A.2d at 467 . Even in the face of a witness’s strenuous denial of personal difficulty in making cross-racial identifications, because the studies cited by the Court of Appeals in Smith and Mack, 388 Md. at 478-86 , 880 A.2d 288 , indicate that there is a “strong consensus among researchers ... that some witnesses are more likely to misidentify members of other races than their own,” id. at 482 , 880 A.2d 288 , the trial judge must, upon request, consider whether an instruction is appropriate in the case. Accordingly, our holding in this case—that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to give the requested instruction on cross-racial identification—should not be interpreted as holding that it is never appropriate to give such an instruction. Nor should the fact that no instruction on cross-racial identification appears yet in the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions serve as the basis for an arbitrary refusal to consider granting such an instruction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tucker v. State · 240 Md. App. 156 - Kazadi v. State

2. “In this case the identifying witness is of a different race than the defendant. In the experience of many it is more difficult to identify members of a different race than mem bers of one’s own. If this is also your own experience, you may consider it in evaluating the witness’s testimony. You must also consider, of course, whether there are other factors present in this case which overcome any such difficulty of identification. For example, you may conclude that the witness has had sufficient contacts with members of the defendant’s race that he would not have greater difficulty in making a reliable identification.”

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

3. “The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding.... The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Md. App. 1 - Maxwell v. State