31 Md. App. 126 - Pinder v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest convicition as fo the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You are not partisans. You are judges — judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case. ” Id. at 609 .”

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

2. ““After the jury has been sequestered to deliberate, we think it advisable that a trial judge, who decides to give an Allen-type charge because of an apparent deadlock, should closely adhere to the wording of the ABA recommended instruction. If he does not, the language selected will be subjected to careful scrutiny in order for it to be determined whether the province of the jury has been invaded and the verdict unduly coerced. In addition, as ample time for discussion and consideration of the issues should be allowed before such a charge is given or repeated, the interval from the onset of deliberation, in view of the complexity of the case, will be considered in examining whether there was an abuse of discretion in giving the instruction at the time the trial judge selected.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 33 Md. App. 601 - Dove v. State

3. “1) that before the jury retires, the ABA approved charge 1 is “always proper;” 2) that if the trial judge desires to “personalize” an Allen-type charge given before the jury retires he has greater latitude in doing so then than later; 3) that after the jury retires the trial court “should closely adhere to the wording of the ABA recommended instruction;” and 4) that in the absence of such adherence a reviewing court will carefully scrutinize the language of the charge to determine whether the jury has been coerced or its province invaded. The appellate court will also consider whether the timing of a nonconforming post-retirement charge amounts to an abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 32 Md. App. 277 - Burnette v. State