18 Md. App. 291 - Bremer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 116 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 93 Md. App. 89 - Davis v. State

2. “In the light of the established procedure, the propriety of the statutory power in the court to order an examination of the mental condition of a defendant is evident. 7 Where he has pleaded insanity as a defense and presented evidence to meet the threshold question, the maintenance of a “fair state-individual balance” requires that the State be permitted to have him examined. When he is indigent the State is required to provide him with an impartial and competent psychiatrist at the State’s expense. Skinner v. State, 16 Md.App. 116, 123-124 , 293 A.2d 828 . This may be done by making available to the defendant the impartial and competent psychiatric staff at the Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital. Brown v. State, 14 Md.App. 415, 423 , 287 A.2d 62 ; Swanson v. State, 9 Md.App. 594, 600-602 , 267 A.2d 270 . 8”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 444 F. Supp. 1049 - Springer v. Collins

3. ““So when a plea has been filed in writing alleging that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, the court should determine preliminarily whether the proof adduced in support thereof is sufficient to raise a doubt as to the sanity of the accused, as defined, in the minds of reasonable men. If it finds that it is not, the State has no further burden with respect thereto and, in a jury trial, the question is not submitted to the jury. If the court finds that the proof adduced was sufficient to surmount the threshold question of doubt as to the accused’s responsibility, the State has the burden of convincing the trier of facts that the accused was sane, and, in a jury trial, evidence on the issue should then be introduced before the jury with proper instructions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 33 Md. App. 344 - Riggleman v. State