Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 50 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These more subtle aspects of potential inconsistency, intrinsically subjective, have to be viewed from the defendant’s perspective, and can be properly weighed only by defense counsel (with the assistance of his client). A screening of the statement by the court cannot suffice as an effective substitute. The court cannot be expected to view in the same context as defense counsel these more latent and subtle gaps or differences; nor should it purport to do so. It is for that reason as well that the court erred. If any weight is to be given to the aforequoted considerations, as we think the Court of Appeals intended, it is incumbent upon the court, under the circumstances evident here, to permit counsel to inspect the statement and determine for himself whether it is or is not usable for cross-examination. The court still retains, of course, the ultimate right to determine whether the statement, or any part of it, is admissible in evidence, either as a document or through questions propounded to the witness. The issue here is not admissibility but inspection for possible use in cross-examination.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 126 - Johnson v. State · 181 Md. App. 59 - Samie v. State

2. ““In a jury trial, judging the credibility of witnesses is entrusted solely to the jury, the trier of fact; only the jury determines whether to believe any witnesses, and which witnesses to believe. See also Dykes v. State, 319 Md. 206, 224 , 571 A.2d 1251, 1260 (1990) (requiring the court to ‘instruct the jury that it is the sole judge of the facts, the weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses’) ... . ” [Some citations omitted.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. State · Spain v. State

3. “access to the internal investigation file to the affected officer, and then only to exculpatory information, and does not expressly provide access by anyone else.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 Md. App. 359 - Maryland Department of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches · 86 Op. Att'y Gen. 94 - (2001)