17 Md. App. 237 - Moore 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. ““ . . . When the defendant objects to evidence of prior convictions under the Burgett principle, the court shall conduct a hearing. ‘At the hearing the State shall first have the burden of producing evidence of a prior conviction, unless admitted by the defendant, sufficient to justify a finding by the court that the defendant has suffered such previous conviction. . . . When this showing has been made the defendant must produce evidence tending to establish that his constitutional right to counsel was infringed in the prior proceeding at issue. . . . The burden is then upon the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not infringed at the prior proceeding . . . The court shall make a finding on the basis of the evidence thus produced and shall exclude from the trial on the merits any prior conviction found to be constitutionally invalid. Any conviction found to be constitutionally valid shall be admitted in evidence. .. .’ This procedure is to be followed whenever the Burgett principle is invoked to exclude evidence of a prior conviction, whether such conviction is to be used to support guilt or to enhance punishment for another offense.” (Footnotes omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Md. App. 179 - Carroll v. State · 67 Md. App. 159 - Middleton v. State

2. ““Unless Burgett is to be forsaken, the conclusion is inescapable that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright to impeach a defendant’s credibility deprive him of due process of law.” 405 U. S. at 483 . (Footnote omitted). (Emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Md. App. 560 - Taylor v. State · 28 Md. App. 150 - Anglin v. State

3. ““We pointed out in both Johnson, supra, and Moore, supra, that the burden is on the State to establish by ‘clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not infringed at the prior proceeding.’ The procedure that we spelled out in Johnson, supra, and reiterated in Moore, supra, was not intended to be a guide, that may or may not be used, but was enunciated and promulgated for the Bench and Bar to follow.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Md. App. 150 - Anglin v. State