Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ Tf a witness disobeys the order of withdrawal, while he may be proceeded against for contempt and his testimony is open to comment to the jury by reason of his conduct, he is not thereby disqualified, and the weight of authority is that he cannot be excluded on that ground merely, although the right to exclude under particular circumstances may be supported as within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Redditt v. State · 59 Md. App. 705 - Watkins v. State

2. “"a. When Presence Required. The defendant shall be present at every stage of the trial, including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as provided by these Rules. "b. When Presence Not Required. A defendant need not be present: 1. At a conference or argument on a question of law; 2. When a nolle prosequi or stet is entered pursuant to Rule 782 (Nolle Prosequi and Stet); 3. At a reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 773 (Sentence — Review) or Rule 774 (Sentence — Revisory Power of Court); 4. At any stage of the proceedings if the defendant is a corporation. "c. When Presence Waived. A defendant initially at trial waives his right to be present when: 1. He voluntarily absents himself after the trial has commenced, whether or not he has been informed by the court of his right to remain during trial; or 2. He engages in conduct to justify his being excluded from the courtroom.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. State

3. ““We are fully cognizant of the necessity of conferences between the court and counsel—either before or during a trial—for the purpose of discussing scheduling, other collateral matters of procedure, to hear arguments of law on evidentiary rulings, to confer on proposed instructions to the jury, and the like. Under the authorities herein- before cited such conferences have not been held to be a part of the trial. To require that all such conferences be conducted in open court, or that the defendant be present in chambers, or at a bench conference, on each occasion would create administrative burdens, diminish the decorum of the proceedings, and in many instances involve security risks—none of which can be balanced by any gain from the defendant’s presence. Trials must, however, not only be fairly conducted but must, to the defendant, give every appearance of so being conducted.” (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henry v. State