186 Md. App. 498 - Smith 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. ““Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · 222 Md. App. 620 - Norwood v. State

2. “1. Did the Court of Special Appeals err in affirming the judgment based on a ground conceded by the State at trial and on appeal and not discussed by the Court or parties at oral argument? 2. Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that Petitioner was not in custody for purposes of Miranda where a police SWAT team raided [Smithj’s apartment, handcuffed [Smith] and his guests, and blocked the entrance and exit while a search of [Smith]’s apartment was conducted? 3. Did the Court of Special Appeals err in holding that [Smith] was not subject to. interrogation where a law enforcement official, knowing [Smith]’s desire to protect his girlfriend, confronted [Smith] with incriminating evidence and declared his intention to arrest [Smith]’s girlfriend?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State

3. “At the threshold of showing the applicability of the Miranda requirements, however, the burden is on the defendant to show that applicability. This is the same shift in the allocation of the burden of proof as that which is made between 1) showing the applicability of the Fourth Amendment and 2) showing the satisfaction of the Fourth Amendment. The burden has always been allocated to a defendant to show the threshold applicability of the Fourth Amendment, to show, for example, the coverage of the place, state action, that the defendant had standing to object, etc.”

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