Burrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In considering whether an entry of nolle prosequi to a lesser included offense is unfair to the defendant, it is not enough to determine that the evidence would be sufficient for the jury to convict on that offense; rather, the evidence must also be such that the jury could rationally convict only on the lesser included offense. If there is no rational basis for the jury to convict a defendant of the lesser offense without also convicting of the greater offense, the State may use its discretion to withdraw that verdict option from the jury by nolle prossing the lesser included offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bass v. State · 128 Md. App. 274 - Thomas v. State

2. “The rule in Jackson is not a renunciation of the Hook test, but rather a logical extension of it. In much the same way as the rule in Hook , the modified test in Jackson works to prevent the jury from convicting the defendant of the wrong charge, but this time by limiting rather than expanding the discretion of the jurors. Just as jurors may not want to acquit a “plainly guilty” defendant altogether, they also may not want to convict a defendant, plainly guilty of the more serious charge, when he appears sympathetic for some reason. If nolle prossing the less serious charge is precluded, the jury may select the option of convicting the defendant of a less serious crime than is warranted by the evidence. Attempting to prevent this type of “compromise” verdict is fair. Justice is no more done when a defendant is wrongly acquitted of a crime than it is when the defendant is wrongly convicted of that crime. As this court stated recently, “Justice is not a one-way street. ‘A fair trial is the entitlement of the “People” as well as an accused.’ ” Whittlesey v. State, 326 Md. 502, 534 , 606 A.2d 225, 240 (1992) (quoting Gonzales v. State, 322 Md. 62, 74 , 585 A.2d 222, 228 (1991)).”

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

3. ““There was ample evidence at trial for a rational jury to convict [the appellant] of either participating in the armed holdup ... or, if jurors believed his claims that he was not a participant, to acquit him of the same. There was absolutely no evidence at trial, however, from which a rational jury could infer that [the appellant] was guilty of aiding and abetting a simple robbery only. The gas station attendant testified that a gun was used. The eyewitness said he saw the attendant’s hands in the air, from which a jury could infer that the men holding up the station were using a deadly weapon. [The appellant] did not contest at trial the prosecutor’s evidence that a weapon was used in the commission of the crime. Without any contravening evidence tending to disprove the use of a deadly weapon, the only rational inference from the evidence which was presented was that an armed robbery, not a simple robbery, had been committed.... The crime to which [the appellant] was an accomplice was unquestionably an armed robbery.” (Emphasis in original).”

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