231 Md. App. 1 - Taneja 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is ... inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.' " Id. (quoting Taylor v. Illinois , 484 U.S. 400 , 410, 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) ). In particular, " '[t]he proffered evidence must be sufficiently relevant, rather than 'cast[ing] a bare suspicion upon another.' " Id. (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319 , 323-24, 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) ). As this Court has explained, the right to present a defense, albeit fundamental, is nonetheless subject "to two paramount rules of evidence, embodied both in case law and in Maryland Rules 5-402 and 5-403. The first is that evidence that is not relevant to a material issue is inadmissible . The second is that, even if relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 175 - Ford v. State · 236 Md. App. 636 - Holmes v. State

2. “evidence would have been, at best, only tangentially relevant and had a high probability of confusing, distracting, and misleading the jury. We are mindful that evidentiary questions are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and are not to be disturbed-even if we were inclined to rule differently-absent a clear abuse of discretion. In sum, the evidence [defense counsel] sought to introduce through Singh was disconnected and remote. It had no other effect than to raise the barest of suspicion that Singh might have killed [the victim].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 636 - Holmes v. State

3. “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 636 - Holmes v. State