Midgett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The jurors sworn to try a criminal action may, at any time before the submission of the case to the jury, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or may be kept in charge of proper officers.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Veney v. Warden · Leckliter v. State

2. “"We think it clear that under Code (1957), Art. 51, Sec. 29, [now codified as Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 8-304] and under La Guardia v. State, 190 Md. 450 , 58 A.2d 913 , the separation of the jury is permissible, in the discretion of the trial court, prior to submission, and that prejudice is not to be presumed from such separation simply because of the possibility of influence or contamination through outside contacts. The next question (assuming an absence or lack of adequate caution) is whether such a defect (a) presents an irregularity which is waived if not objected to in the trial court or (b) presents a situation in which either the State must rebut or the defendant must show prejudice. We think that it does not present an error which is so fundamental that it could not either be waived or be disposed of as a matter of proof or of the burden of proof. In Kennard v. State, 177 Md. 549 , 10 A.2d 710 , which was a misdemeanor case, the trial court permitted a separation of the jury after the verdict had been agreed upon, but before it had been rendered. This court viewed the matter as a question of prejudice, vel non, and not as a matter of a denial of a fundamental right, and though expressing disapproval of permitting separation after submission, if found that no prejudice to the defendant has resulted and upheld the conviction....” "As to separation, the Court [in La Guardia v. State, supra at 456] refused to recognize any presumption of prejudice and said, ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Magwood · 46 Md. App. 249 - Reemsnyder v. State

3. “It is, however, our established practice that an admonition be given by the trial court to the members of the jury, prior to their separation, against discussing the case with others or among themselves. Unquestionably, such a specific admonition would have been given, if requested, just as the trial judge of his own motion gave such an admonition on several occasions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 179 Md. App. 72 - Jones-Harris v. State