28 Md. App. 196 - Pearson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"On the other hand, we are not prepared to hold, in the absence of showing actual prejudice, that the giving of such an instruction, in correct terms, is violative of the accused's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, compelling a reversal of the accused's otherwise proper conviction. The rule in Griffin v. California, supra , directs only that the trial judge refrain from instructing the jury that an accused's failure to take the stand may be the basis for an inference of the accused's guilt. "The accused is, of course, entitled to such an instruction if it is requested by him. We are not persuaded, however, that the giving of such an instruction by the trial judge sua sponte, or at the request of the prosecutor, even over the objection of the accused, constitutes reversible error in the absence of a showing that the accused suffered actual prejudice as the result of such instruction. Whether to give the instruction lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge and, unless an accused can show a clear abuse of that discretion, the action of the trial judge in giving such an instruction will not be disturbed if it is phrased in terms proper and fair to the accused. "In the case at bar, the appellant makes no contention that the instruction itself was improperly phrased and since there has been no showing that the appellant suffered actual prejudice as the result of the instruction, we cannot find that there was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion in giving the instruc”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lakeside · 72 Md. App. 592 - Hardaway v. State

2. “from the Washington constitutional self-incrimination provision, and that it is not prejudicial whether given at the request of the state or on the court's own motion. There was no discussion of Fifth Amendment rights. In Pearson , the instruction was given over the defendant's prior objection. The opinion recognizes that Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment issues may be involved and, after reviewing some of the authorities to which we have directed attention, concluded:”

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

3. “entitled as a matter of right to have the trial judge tell the jury it must not attach any importance to defendant's failure to testify”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 72 Md. App. 592 - Hardaway v. State