191 Md. App. 233 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “error would not be 'plain' unless it is wrong under current law”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 484 - Hallowell v. State · 197 Md. App. 264 - Frazier v. State

2. “Plain error review is reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial. Before we can exercise our discretion to find plain error, four conditions must be met: (1) there must be an error or defect-some sort of deviation from a legal rule-that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e. , affirmatively waived, by the appellant; (2) the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error must have affected the appellant's substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings; and (4) the error must seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 484 - Hallowell v. State

3. “Courts follow a two-step inquiry to determine the admissibility of disputed identification evidence alleged to be the product of unduly suggestive pre-trial identification procedures. The accused, in his challenge to such evidence, bears the initial burden of showing that the procedure employed to obtain the identification was unduly suggestive. Once this showing is made, the court must then determine whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable despite the suggestiveness of the confrontation procedure. Although the reliability of the identification is the “linchpin” question, if the identification 'procedure is not unduly suggestive, then our inquiry is at an end.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 196 Md. App. 146 - Wood v. State