2 Md. App. 285 - Britton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 19 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that testimony taken at a former trial may be admitted, if it be shown that the witness is dead, insane, or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or on diligent inquiry cannot be located, or that some other circumstance exists which shows that the witness who gave the testimony at the former trial cannot be procured as a witness at the second trial. ... The writers and authorities all agree that where there was an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former trial, there is no violation of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against the accused, under Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights or under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Since there is no constitutional right involved, there has been a discernible tendency, we think, to liberalize the rule, which was first applied ex necessitate in the case of death.” (citations omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Md. App. 461 - Brooks v. State

2. “The matter in question rests within “the sound discretion of the trial judge as to whether or not to admit the testimony of a witness even where there has been a violation of the exclusion order”, Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283 , 208 A.2d 599 . We see no abuse of discretion here. [Britton v. State, supra, 2 Md.App. at 290-291 , 234 A.2d at 278 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Britton v. Maryland