182 Md. App. 444 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The primary purpose of judicial interrogation of witnesses is to clarify matters elicited on direct or cross examination. (2) Judicial interference in the examination of witnesses should be limited and it is preferable for the trial judge to err on the side of abstention from intervention in the case. (3) Although the- number of questions posed by the trial judge [may] exceed[ ] those normally asked by a trial judge, the sheer number, standing alone, is not determinative of whether reversal is warranted. (4) It is preferable for the presiding judge to afford counsel the opportunity to elicit relevant and material testimony prior to interceding. (5) Continued inquisitorial participation in the questioning of witnesses runs afoul of the court’s role as impartial arbiter, whether such questions are proper or improper, when they tend to influence the jury regarding the court’s view of the testimony and evidence. (6) The most egregious manner of intervention is the trial court’s personal injection of its views and/or attitude toward witnesses or parties or their theory of the case through intimidation, threatening, sarcasm, derision or expressions of disbelief, irrespective of the frequency or the point in time during or at the conclu sion of direct or cross-examination of counsel. (7) If the direct and cross-examination of counsel is woefully inadequate, requiring extensive supplementation thereof, the preferred procedure is for the court to summons both counsel to the bench ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 190 Md. App. 275 - Joseph v. State

2. “Our review of the [trial] court’s denial of a motion to suppress is based on the record created at the suppression hearing and is a mixed question of law and fact. An appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact only for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences fairly drawn by the trial court and viewing the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the prevailing party on the motion. However, legal conclusions are not afforded deference and thus are reviewed de novo. This Court reviews de novo the conclusions of the trial court as to whether reasonable, articulable suspicion justified a traffic stop, as this is a question of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 Md. App. 309 - Ray v. State

3. “Although a conviction is rarely reversed on the grounds that the judge has compromised his or her impartiality by intervening in a case, there have been instances where the egregiousness of a trial court's intervention indeed warranted admonishment of the trial court or, even in some cases, a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 524 - Payton v. State