238 Md. App. 545 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] properly framed question about "strong feelings" is at least the equivalent of, and therefore an adequate substitute for, a missing question about personal or familial involvement with the crime. But is the converse also true? Is a question about personal or familial involvement the equivalent of, and an adequate substitute for, a missing or improperly[-]phrased question about "strong feelings"? Equivalency can be a tricky thing. Is the more general question broader and the more specific question narrower? Might it be that a broader question could substitute for a missing narrower question, but that a narrower question would not substitute for a missing broader question? Or are we slicing the analysis too thinly, and should simply accept equivalency as a general truth? Pearson , of course, had no occasion to deal with its converse, and, therefore, does not answer our question. In our reading of Pearson , however, we find nothing to foreclose the acceptance of the converse. As a practical matter, a prospective juror with "strong feelings" and a prospective juror with some personal or familial experience with a similar crime would both have been called to the bench. They would both have been probed, by court and counsel, about the source of their "strong feelings" or their involvement with the crime. Both lines of inquiry would have led to the same place. It seems to us almost inevitable that both inquiries would have revealed the same underlying circumstances, whichever wa”

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

2. “received, perhaps an hour and one-half later, precisely what he had sought one hour and one-half earlier, a jury competent to return a fair and impartial verdict. Nothing of any critical significance had occurred in that intervening hour and one-half.”

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

3. “'shift[ed] from the trial court to the prospective jurors responsibility to decide prospective juror bias.' " Pearson , 437 Md. at 362 , 86 A.3d at 1239 (quoting Dingle , 361 Md. at 21 , 759 A.2d at 830 ) (brackets omitted). The "something in the past”

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