Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 56 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. “have also refused to engraft the requirement of surprise”: Burgin v. State, 747 So.2d 916, 919 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Eubanks v. State, 516 P.2d 726, 728 (Alaska 1973); State v. Acree, 121 Ariz. 94 , 588 P.2d 836, 838 (1978); State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9 , 509 A.2d 493, 498 (1986); Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla.1997), overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000); State v. Gonzalez, 120 Ill.App.3d 1029 , 76 Ill.Dec. 393 , 458 N.E.2d 1047, 1055 (1983); State v. Farley, 225 Kan. 127 , 587 P.2d 337, 341 (1978); Thurman v. State, 975 S.W.2d 888, 893 (Ky.1998); State v. Cousin, 710 So.2d 1065, 1070 (La.1998); State v. Dodge, 397 A.2d 588 , 592 n. 6 (Me.1979); Smith v. State, 766 P.2d 1007, 1009 (Okla.Crim.App.1988); State v. Warren, 88 Cr.App. 462, 745 P.2d 822, 824 (1987); State v. Kimbell, 563 Pa. 256 , 759 A.2d 1273, 1279 (2000); State v. Collins, 186 W.Va. 1 , 409 S.E.2d 181, 188 (1990); State v. Hancock, 109 Wash.2d 760 , 748 P.2d 611, 612 (1988). Walker, 798 A.2d at 1231 , overruled on other grounds by Walker v. State, 373 Md. 360 , 818 A.2d 1078, 1089 (2003) ("We hold that the trial court and Court of Special Appeals properly found that proof of surprise is not a necessary prerequisite under Md. Rule 5-607 analysis.”). Only Mississippi was cited as "still”

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

2. “Prosecutors are held to even higher standards of conduct than other attorneys due to their unique role as both advocate and minister of justice. The special duty of the prosecutor to seek justice is said to exist because the State’s Attorney has broad discretion in determining whether to initiate criminal proceedings. Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86, 90 , 40 A.2d 319, 321 (1944). The office of prosecutor is therefore “not purely ministerial, but involves the exercise of learning and discretion,” and he or she “must exercise a sound discretion to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.” Id. The responsibilities of the prosecutor encompass more than advocacy. The prosecutor’s duty is not merely to convict, but to seek justice. “His obligation is to protect not only the public interest but the innocent as well and to safeguard the rights guaranteed to all persons, including those who may be guilty.” Sinclair v. State, 27 Md.App. 207, 222-23 , 340 A.2d 359, 369 (1975).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gansler

3. ““The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.””

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