State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... The statement made in the instant case is analogous to the statements in Jennings [v. State, 303 Md. 72 , 492 A.2d 295 (1985)]. In both cases the statements were made during drug deals to persons who were not known to be State agents and who were not trying to elicit any admissions or confessions. There is not the slightest suggestion before this Court that [the undercover officer’s] involvement in the second drug transaction was for the purpose of inducing or deliberately eliciting Brown’s statement. Rather, Brown voluntarily made the statement under circumstances involving no interrogation or coercion. Brown, therefore, did not and could not contend that his statement was acquired in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights. We can find no reason to compel the State to produce a statement voluntarily made to an undercover officer during a drug transaction merely because it occurred after the crime for which the defendant was charged. Consequently, Brown's statements ... are not discoverable under Md. Rule 4-263(a)(2)(B) and (b)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Md. App. 682 - Thomas v. State

2. “[T]he State should err on the side of disclosure in any case where there reasonably exists the possibility that the statement was unlawfully obtained. This word of caution is issued because if the statement was discoverable and wasn’t provided, the trial court may, within its discretion, impose a sanction for the discovery violation under 4-263(i). Subsection (i) authorizes the trial judge to order the violating party “to permit the discovery of the matters not previously disclosed, strike the testimony to which the undisclosed matter relates, grant a reasonable continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the matter not disclosed, grant a mistrial, or enter any other order appropriate under the circumstances.” Thus, the State should consider the possible repercussions of failing to disclose a statement that the defendant had reasonable grounds to argue was subject to a pretrial suppression motion.”

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

3. “Admissions, statements, or confessions that might have been unlawfully obtained are subject to a pretrial motion to suppress under [Maryland] Rule 4-252(a)(4). Under Rule 4-252 an allegation that an admission, statement, or confession was unlawfully obtained must be raised by pretrial motion or it is waived. In limiting by rule required State disclosure to statements made to State agents, and in excluding by decision statements made to State agents during the commission of che crime, this Court has, as have the federal courts, made it clear that oral statements which must be disclosed under 4-263 are those statements which might possibly have been unlawfully obtained and suppressible under 4-252.”

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