177 Md. App. 1 - Alston v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As in the presumed prejudice cases, the Supreme Court has found an error to be structural and subject to automatic reversal in a very limited number of cases. Moreover, in those cases where the Supreme Court, and indeed other courts, have found structural error mandating automatic reversal, the errors appear to be of constitutional magnitude. Such defects include a defective reasonable doubt instruction, racial discrimination in grand jury selection, denial of a public trial, total deprivation of counsel, and a judge who is not impartial. (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 1 - Lancaster v. State · 205 Md. App. 334 - TETSO v. State

2. “In Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1265 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), the Supreme Court held that if an error in a criminal trial is considered a structural error or defect, a reviewing court cannot apply the harmless error standard. A structural defect or error is one that “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself[,] .... [and] ‘transcends the criminal process.’ ” Id., 499 U.S. at 310-11 , 111 S.Ct. at 1265 . Trial defects that the Supreme Court has held to be structural error include: deprivation of the rights to counsel at trial, to an impartial judge, to self-representation, and to a public trial, as well as unlawful exclusion of members of the defendant’s race from a grand jury. See id., 499 U.S. at 310 , 111 S.Ct. at 1265 . The types of trial error that the Supreme Court has held not to be structural include the admission of an involuntary confession, a defendant’s statements obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, and an out-of-court statement by a non-testifying co-defendant. See id., 499 U.S. at 309-311 , 111 S.Ct. at 1265 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 205 Md. App. 334 - TETSO v. State

3. “To be sure, it is conceivable the jury may have been improperly led to believe from the instruction that it could convict Alston of conspiracy to commit second degree murder without finding a specific intent to kill. A proper instruction would have informed the jury that it could only convict Alston for conspiracy to commit first degree murder or that the specific intent to Mil was required. But Alston failed to timely object to the instruction, as Md. Rule 4-325(e) requires: No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party on the record promptly after the court instructs the jury, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. Alston’s failure to challenge the jury instruction in accord with Md. Rule 4-325(e) now bars his asserted assignment of error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 195 Md. App. 599 - Armstead v. State