Midgett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 188 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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this State there is no doubt that an accused in a criminal prosecution for a felony has the absolute right to be present at every stage of his trial from the time the jury is impaneled until it reaches a verdict or is discharged, and there can be no valid trial or judgment unless he has been afforded that right. The constitutional guarantee includes the right of the accused to be present (i) when the jury is charged or instructed on the facts, the law or the form of the verdict, before it has begun its deliberations or afterwards upon its request or by direction of the court; (ii) when the court is repeating a charge or instruction previously given in whole or in part; (iii) when the court communicates with the jury in answer to questions propounded by the jury, or (iv) when there shall be any communication whatsoever between the court and the jury; unless the record affirmatively shows that such communications were not prejudicial or had no tendency to influence the verdict of the jury. Furthermore, the right to be present is personal to the accused and cannot be waived by his counsel. Duffy v. State, 151 Md. 456 , 135 A. 189 (1926); La Guardia v. State, 190 Md. 450 , 58 A.2d 913 (1948); Constitution of Maryland, Declaration of Rights, Art. 5.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. State · Stewart v. State

2. ““Every person . . . who shall be convicted of the crime of kidnapping and forcibly or fraudulently carrying or causing to be carried out of or within this State any person, . . . with in tent to have such person carried out of or within this State, or with the intent to have such person concealed within the State or without the State, shall be guilty of a felony . . (Emphasis added)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Midgett v. McClelland · Trimble v. State

3. “* * * instructions which are ambiguous, misleading, or confusing to jurors can never be classed as non-injurious.” We hold that this is especially true in a criminal case where the jury is the judge of both the law and the facts and the instruction is merely advisory. [Id. at 41.] We hold that the combination of the ambiguous question, ambiguously clarified by the trial judge, and the answer create sufficient confusion in this case to warrant reversal and a remand for a new trial. Ill Sufficiency of the evidence Battle argues that the testimony of a witness who saw the victim”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Battle v. State · 422 F. Supp. 82 - Midgett v. McClelland