Richardson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 59 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction ... but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant____ But this protection must be confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer____ The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares in so doing he would incriminate himself — his say so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, and to require him to answer if “it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.” (citation omitted). (Emphasis provided).”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adkins v. State · Bert v. Comptroller of the Treasury

2. “"Our predecessors clearly set forth in numerous cases the procedures to be followed in determining when a witness may refuse to testify on grounds that the evidence adduced may incriminate him. The witness should first be called to the stand and sworn. Midgett v. State, 223 Md. 282, 289 , 164 A.2d 526, 529 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 853 , 81 S.Ct. 819 , 5 L.Ed.2d 817 (1961). Interrogation of the witness should then proceed to the point where he asserts his privilege against self-incrimination as a ground for not answering a question. Shifflett v. State, 245 Md. 169, 173-74 , 225 A.2d 440, 443 (1967). If it is a jury case, the jury should then be dismissed and the trial judge should attempt to `determine whether the claim of privilege is in good faith or lacks any reasonable basis.' Midgett v. State, supra, 223 Md. at 289 , 164 A.2d 526 . If further interrogation is pursued, then the witness should either answer the questions asked or assert his privilege, making this decision on a question by question basis. Royal v. State, 236 Md. 443, 447 , 204 A.2d 500, 502 (1964).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adkins v. State · Gray v. State

3. “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Maurice M. · Gray v. State