214 Md. App. 208 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “an Allen -type instruction is given as the result of an apparent deadlock, the trial court "should closely adhere to the wording of the ABA recommended instruction." Kelly [ v. State ], 270 Md. [139,] 144, 310 A.2d 538 [, 542 (1973) ]. However, the court is not "imprison[ed] ... within the walls of foreordained verbiage [,]" and the trial judge may personalize the charge. Burnette [ v. State ], 280 Md. [88,] 98, 371 A.2d 663 [, 667 (1977) ] (citing Kelly , 270 Md. at 142 , 310 A.2d [at 541] ). When the trial court does not adhere closely to the language of the approved instruction, we must review the court's instruction carefully to determine "whether the province of the jury has been invaded and the verdict unduly coerced." Kelly , 270 Md. at 144 , 310 A.2d [at 542]. Any deviation from the pattern instruction should be largely in form and style, and the instruction must adhere to the spirit and substance of the ABA-approved instruction. See Burnette , 280 Md. at 98, 101 , 371 A.2d [at 668] ("Deviations in substance will not meet with our approval. Coercion of the jury for the purpose of breaking a deadlock must be avoided.").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 397 - Taylor v. State

2. “that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, ... they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other’s arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 234 Md. App. 71 - Davis v. Armacost

3. “If your views are contrary to those of the vast majority you should consider whether your views, which make no impression on the minds of so many equally intelligent jurors, are correct.” In response to that language [the Burnette Court] stated: "It is difficult to imagine a minority juror who would not be placed in some discomfort on hearing this instruction. Criticism runs directly to him, and he might understandably conclude that proper 'deference' to the opinions of the majority demands that he abandon his conscientious position.”

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