34 Md. App. 206 - Williams v. State’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. “[W]e should almost certainly notice an erroneous instruction that presumed a defendant to be guilty until proved innocent and which placed upon him the full burden of proving his innocence upon the ultimate merits.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Danna v. State · 150 Md. App. 403 - Perry v. State

2. ““Whenever a door is left slightly ajar, there is irresistible temptation on the part of bar, and sometimes even bench, ever to widen the breach. The process is gradual and each progressive nudge imperceptible when viewed alone. What began, however, as a door almost, though not quite, closed is suddenly perceived to be a door almost, though not quite, wide open.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 150 Md. App. 403 - Perry v. State · 90 Md. App. 254 - Austin v. State

3. ““[W]e can sympathize with the attorney who fails to anticipate a Mapp v. Ohio, a Miranda v. Arizona, a Wade-Gilbert-Stovall, trilogy, or, of more recent impact, a Mullaney v. Wilbur. We are not so sympathetic, however, to the attorney who remains unaware of these decisions once they have been handed down. The diminu tion of sympathy runs in direct proportion to the passage of time from the date of promulgation of the new decision.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 90 Md. App. 254 - Austin v. State