193 Md. App. 426 - Aguilera v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he [trial] court is ultimately responsible for determining that the defendant had some knowledge of the jury trial right before being allowed to waive it. To waive the constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury the trial [court] must be satisfied that there has been an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Because only the defendant can validly waive his or her right to trial by jury, the defendant must directly respond to the waiver inquiry. Moreover, in determining whether the defendant made the waiver knowingly, we will look to the totality of the circumstances.... In the case at bar, the record shows that [the defendant] obviously had “some knowledge” of his right to a jury trial, because he (1) made a considered decision to pray a jury trial rather than stand trial in the District Court, (2) had been a criminal defendant in at least one jury trial presided over by the very same [trial] court judge who presided over the case at bar, (3) was represented by counsel, who reached an agreement with the State, pursuant to which the State would drop all but one of several charges then pending against the defendant in the [trial] court, (4) elected to proceed on a “not guilty agreed statement of facts” in order to preserve for appellate review some issue that was thereafter abandoned, and (5) advised the [trial] court that he understood that he was “waiving any right to have a jury trial of this matter, as well as a [bench] trial[.]””

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

2. “We also conclude that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the violation of [Maryland] Rule 4-246 constituted harmless error. An error is harmless and does not entitle a defendant to a new trial if the reviewing court is able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in no way influenced the verdict. Although the rules of procedure are precise rubrics to be strictly followed ...[,] [i]t does not follow, however, that the harmless error doctrine has no application to the Maryland Rules and that a violation of a procedural rule can never be harmless. There is no basis in authority or logic for such a holding. The violations of certain rules, however, because of the nature and purpose of these particular rules, can rarely be deemed harmless error. The right to jury trial and the right to counsel are among such rules. The actual denial of the unwaived right to trial by jury is ordinarily a structural error and is not subject to harmless error review. A structural error is one that amounted to structural defects in the trial itself. Clearly, the violation here of [Maryland] Rule 4-246 was error, though not structural. Thus, we must determine whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by the tardy waiver. If not, then the error was harmless and she is not entitled to a new trial.... [B]ecause [the defendant] waived voluntarily and knowingly her right to trial by jury on the record, albeit mid-trial, we similarly do not see how the late waiver, when it was otherw”

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

3. “Although the law does not require the [trial] court to use a specific form of inquiry in determimng whether a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial is knowing and voluntary, the record must demonstrate an intentional relinquishment of a known right. What questions must be asked will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In determining whether a waiver is knowing, the [trial] court should seek to ensure that the defendant understands that: (1) the defendant has the right to a trial by jury; (2) unless the defendant waives a trial by jury, the case will be tried by a jury; (3) a jury consists of 12 individuals who reside in the county where the court is sitting, selected at random from a list that includes registered voters, licensed drivers, and holders of identification cards issued by the Motor Vehicle Administration, seated as jurors at the conclusion of a selection process in which the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and the State participate; (4) all 12 jurors must agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty and may only convict upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (5) if the jury is unable to reach a unanimous decision, a mistrial will be declared and the State will then have the option of retrying the defendant; and (6) if the defendant waives a jury trial, the court will not permit the defendant to change the election unless the [trial] court finds good cause to permit the change.”

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