Glickman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[wjhere a verdict is ambiguous, inconsistent, unresponsive, or otherwise defective, it is the duty of the trial judge to call the jury’s attention to the defect and to direct them to put the verdict in proper form either in the presence of the court or by returning to their consultation room for the purpose of further deliberation.” 11”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 59 Md. App. 612 - Jenkins v. State · Lattisaw v. State

2. ““It is a fundamental principle that the verdict of a jury in a criminal case has no effect in law until it is recorded and finally accepted by the court. . .. Until the announcement that the verdict has been recorded, the jury have the right to amend or change any verdict; and when it is so amended it is the real verdict of the jury and it may be properly accepted by the court.” Id. at 616-617 , 42 A.2d 128 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perez v. State · 173 Md. App. 430 - Jones v. State

3. ““The holding in the Holmes case, supra, was to the effect that where there were a large number of indictments charging defendant with obtaining various sums of money from a person named, and a blanket indictment embracing the aggregate of such sums so obtained and an additional sum, it was proper for the court to consolidate all these indictments, even without the consent of the accused, and that a verdict of guilty upon some of the other indictments was not inconsistent with a verdict of not guilty upon the blanket indictment. The opinion discloses, at page 422 of 146 Md. 126 A. 116, that there was a verdict as to each of the twenty-three indictments, not guilty as to five of them and guilty as to the remainder. In the course of its opinion the Court does say, at page 426 of 146 Md., at page 118 of 126 A.: ‘After the consolidation the position was identical with an indictment containing twenty-three counts, one of which counts charged the obtaining of $66,977.-24, and twenty-two other counts charging the obtention of the various sums set out in the twenty-two indictments in this case, other than the blanket indictment.’ But the Court was considering here only the consistency of the verdicts on the separate indictments. That question is not involved in the cases at bar. Here we are considering whether or not the verdict of the jury as first rendered was a full and complete verdict on all the indictments before it. That it was not is evidenced by the fact that the jury, upon i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 Md. App. 152 - Stevenson v. State