McKenzie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To support his request for the statements the appellant relies on Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657 (1957), but the Supreme Court has stated that that decision was applicable only to federal criminal prosecutions, Palerma v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 345 (1959). The appellant admits in his brief that his request was beyond the scope of Maryland Rule 728 dealing with discovery in criminal cases. We have stated consistently that a request for the production of documents or statements in the possession or control of the State is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Williams v. State, 226 Md. 614 , 174 A. 2d 719 , cert. den. 369 U. S. 855 (1961); Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272 , 164 A. 2d 461 (1960); Whittle v. Munshower, 221 Md. 258 , 155 A. 2d 670 , cert. den. 362 U. S. 981 (1959), and see case note, 20 Md. L. Rev. 292 ; State v. Haas, 188 Md. 63 , 51 A. 2d 647 (1947). Here, the defense failed to state adequate reasons for the request or to state what it was hoped the statements would show if produced. It would seem that the request was nothing more than a ‘fishing expedition’. * * *. Upon the facts before us we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion.” 236 Md. at 602 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carr v. State · Veney v. State

2. ““We have held repeatedly that the denial of a request for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. We conclude that under the circumstances there was no abuse of this discretion. * * * As to the claim that he needed time to summon witnesses, even if we disregard the month which had elapsed after arraignment we find no basis for continuance since he did not make any proffer regarding the materiality of their testimony, their names or their availability. See Mazer v. State, 231 Md. 40, 46 , 188 A. 2d 552 (1963); Stansbury v. State, 218 Md. 255, 262 , 146 A. 2d 17 (1958); Jackson v. State, 214 Md. 454 , 135 A. 2d 638 (1957). * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2 Md. App. 80 - Boone v. State