Glover v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing the judgment on a motion to dismiss for violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, we make our own independent constitutional analysis. See State v. Bailey, 319 Md. 392, 415 , 572 A.2d 544, 554-55 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841 , 111 S.Ct. 118 , 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); see also Crosby v. State, 366 Md. 518, 526 , 784 A.2d 1102, 1106 (2001) (stating that “when the issue is whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make our own independent constitutional appraisal”); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457 , 682 A.2d 248, 253 (1996); Carroll v. State, 335 Md. 723, 736 , 646 A.2d 376, 383 (1994). We perform a de novo constitutional appraisal in light of the particular facts of the case at hand; in so doing, we accept a lower court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. See Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 432 , 769 A.2d 879, 883 (2001) (conducting a de novo review of a trial court’s legal/constitutional conclusions with respect to a denial of a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment, but stating that a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard); Cartnail v. State, 359 Md. 272, 282 , 753 A.2d 519, 525 (2000) (maintaining that this Court does not engage in de novo fact-finding); State v. Ruben, 127 Md.App. 430, 438 , 732 A.2d 1004, 1008 , cert. denied, 356 Md. 496 , 740 A.2d 613 (1999).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 484 - Hallowell v. State · Fields v. State

2. “(a) Requirements for setting date.—(1) The date for trial of a criminal matter in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the earlier of: (1) the appearance of counsel; or (ii) the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court, as provided in the Maryland Rules. (2) The trial date may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of those events. (b) Change of date.—(1) For good cause shown, the county administrative judge or a designee of the judge may grant a change of the trial date in a circuit court: (1) on motion of a party; or (ii) on the initiative of the circuit court. (2) If a circuit court trial date is changed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, any subsequent changes of the trial date may only be made by the county administrative judge or that judge's designee for good cause shown. (c) Court rules.—The Court of Appeals may adopt additional rules to cany out this section.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Fields v. State · State v. Kanneh

3. “A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kanneh · 224 Md. App. 306 - Peters v. State