State v. Joynes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There are two important components to relevant evidence: materiality and probative value. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issues in the case. The second aspect of relevance is probative value, which is the tendency of evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove. * * * Evidence which is thus not probative of the proposition at which it is directed is deemed ‘irrelevant.’ The trial judge is usually in the best position to evaluate the probative value of the proffered evidence. Where evidence is utterly lacking in probative value, it may be condemned as ‘remote’ or ‘speculative.’ ” (Citations omitted).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · Krauss v. State

2. “In Leeson v. State, 293 Md. 425, 433-34 , 445 A.2d 21, 25 (1982), we reaffirmed the traditional test of admissibility of evidence in a criminal case as articulated in Dorsey____ The Dorsey court outlined the responsibility of a trial judge in determining the relevancy of proposed evidence. There, this Court stated: The real test of admissibility of evidence in a criminal case is “the connection of the fact proved with the offense charged, as evidence which has a natural tendency to establish the fact at issue.” ... [0]ur predecessors stated it to be “an elementary rule that evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant to the issues and must tend either to establish or disprove them.” [Citations omitted].”

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