Brooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 1 - Lancaster v. State · Coleman v. State

2. “We noted that “[t]he cases universally recognize the exception to the nondisclosure privilege where the informer was a participant, accessory or witness to the crime.” Gulick v. State, 252 Md. 348, 354 [ 249 A.2d 702 ] (1969). Judge Orth, in Nutter v. State, 8 Md.App. 635 [ 262 A.2d 80 ] (1970), clarified the disclosure requirement in regard to an informer who witnesses the unlawful transaction: “ ‘[Witness’ as used in Gulick means a material witness, in the sense that his testimony is important to a fair determination of the cause. It is then that his identity becomes necessary and relevant to a fair defense. Thus in this context ‘material’ may be said to have a meaning more restrictive than its usual meaning. So, although an eyewitness to a crime is clearly a ‘material’ witness as that word is ordinarily used, if he is an informer, simply observing an illegal transaction but not participating in it, the fact that he observes the transaction does not necessarily make his possible testimony so important as to compel disclosure of his identity in the face of the rationale of the nondisclosure privilege.” (Emphasis in original). The decision to compel disclosure of an informer is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gulick, 252 Md. at 354 [ 249 A.2d 702 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Md. App. 626 - Murray v. State

3. “[a defendant] must do more than merely speculate that disclosure will prove helpful____ “[W]hile a defendant who has not had an opportunity to interview a witness may face a difficult task in making a showing of materiality, the task is not an impossible one.” Nevertheless, the burden is on the defendant to assert a substantial reason indicating that the identity of the informer is material to his defense or the fair determination of the case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Md. App. 626 - Murray v. State