Hersch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the immediate consequence of a violation of probation may well be imprisonment, often for a significant period of time, we believe a Johnson v. Zerbst [ 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) ] standard must apply to the waiver of the important right that the probationer has to put the State to its proof. As Chief Judge Murphy pointed out for the Court in Howlett [v. State] supra, 295 Md. [419] at 427-28, 456 A.2d 375 [ (1983) ] no particular litany is required to show a waiver of these rights by a probationer, but the record must show that ‘the charge was explained to the probationer in understandable terms and that his responses demonstrated that his actions were knowing and voluntary.’ It takes but a few moments to ensure that the probationer personally understands the nature of the charges of alleged violations; that he has an absolute right to a hearing at which the State would have to prove the allegations; that he wishes to give up that right and to admit that he did violate his probation; and that his action is freely and voluntarily taken, without threats, promises or inducements.” 317 Md. at 208-09 , 562 A.2d 1254 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Blessen H. · Marshall v. State

2. “Precisely what process is due depends upon a number of factors. “Probationers have an obvious interest in retaining their conditional liberty and the State also has an interest in assuming that revocation proceedings are based on accurate findings of fact and where appropriate, the informed exercise of discretion.” Black [v. Romano], supra, 471 U.S. [606] at 611, 105 S.Ct. [2254] at 2257 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985) ]. On the other hand, it is important that the proceedings not be fettered by the “imposition of rigid requirements that would threaten the informal nature of probation revocation proceedings or interfere with exercise of discretion by the sentencing authority.” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Md. App. 299 - Kitchen v. State

3. “The probationer is entitled to written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement written by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking the probation____ The probationer is also entitled to cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless the hearing body specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation. Finally, the probationer has a right to the assistance of counsel in some circumstances. Black, 471 U.S. at 612 , 105 S.Ct. at 2258 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 642-43 .”

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