Andrews v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In-court demonstrations are permitted with the court’s permission, if the pertinent conditions are substantially the same as at the time in question, and if the procedure will not be unduly time-consuming, confusing or likely to arouse unfairly emotional reactions in the jury. This Court has applied these general principles to demonstrations involving objects and required that the party seeking to utilize the demonstration make a preliminary showing that what the demonstration is expected to establish is “substantially similar” to the facts and circumstances at issue. We have further stated that “demonstrative evidence need not be original in order to be admissible, [however,] there must be ‘ample evidence ’ that the item offered as demonstrative evidence is substantially similar to the item that actually played a part in the events at issue.” As we see it, the “substantially similar” requirement gives effect to the initial relevance determination required of all evidence by [Maryland] Rule 5-402. Without the substantially similar requirement serving as a gatekeeper to the admission of demonstrative evidence, the net effect would be the admission of all demonstrative evidence, whether relevant or irrelevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 187 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bickerstaff

2. ““Demonstrative evidence has been described as physical evidence that ‘helps the jurors understand the testimony, but it is otherwise unrelated to the case.’ ” Demonstrative evidence is generally offered for clarification or illustration of the witness’s testimony and it need not be original or authentic. “Instead, the theory justifying admission of these exhibits requires only that the item be sufficiently explanatory or illustrative of relevant testimony to be of potential help to the trier of fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 187 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bickerstaff

3. ““A foundation simply must be laid through the witness’s testimony that the evidence fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to depict (a subject as to which the witness has the required knowledge) and that it will be helpful to the witness in explaining his or her testimony. It is then admissible in the trial court’s discretion.... ” ❖ 4: * “The court must weigh the demonstrative evidence’s probative value against the possibility of unfair prejudice or confusion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 187 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bickerstaff