Bhagwat v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The test of the witness's entitlement to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination—(1) whether there is a reasonable basis for the invocation of the privilege; and (2) whether the privilege is invoked in good faith, see Adkins v. State, supra, 316 Md. at 6-7 , 557 A.2d at 205-06 ; Richardson v. State, supra, 285 Md. at 265 , 401 A.2d at 1024 ; Midgett v. State, 223 Md. at 288-92 , 164 A.2d at 529-31 ; McLain, Maryland Evidence, supra, § 514.1, at 605 was well stated in Choi v. State, 316 Md. 529 , 560 A.2d 1108 (1989). It is whether `the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer,' id. at 536 , 560 A.2d at 1111 , and whether it is `evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.' Id. at 537 , 560 A.2d at 1111 ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gray v. State · 228 Md. App. 391 - Johnson v. State

2. “[B]ecause the privilege is not a prohibition of inquiry, but is an option of refusal, the witness should first be called to the stand and sworn. Interrogation of the witness should then proceed to the point where he or she asserts his or her privilege against self-incrimination as a ground for not answering a question. If it is a jury case, the jury should then be dismissed and the trial judge should attempt to determine whether the claim of privilege is in good faith or lacks any reasonable basis. If further interrogation is pursued, then the witness should either answer the questions asked or assert his or her privilege, making this decision on a question by question basis.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 188 Md. App. 489 - Dickson v. State · Smith v. State

3. ““(W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed ‘harmless’ and a reversal is mandat ed. Such reviewing court must thus be satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of—whether erroneously admitted or excluded—may have contributed to the rendition of the guilty verdict.” (Footnote omitted).”

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