4 Md. App. 373 - Walter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An accused may waive a jury trial and elect to be tried by the court. If an accused elects to be tried by the court the State may not elect a jury trial. An election to be tried by the court must be made before any evidence in the trial on the merits is taken unless otherwise provided by local rule of court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Md. App. 379 - Cole v. State · 17 Md. App. 130 - Jones v. State

2. “It is elementary that a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, Bright v. State, 1 Md. App. 657 , 232 A.2d 544 . The appellants urge however the right to counsel is so fundamental that the action of the court deprived them of counsel. In Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 , 84 S. Ct. 841 , 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 , the Supreme Court of the United States considered the problem involving the denial of a continuance which allegedly deprived the accused of his right to engage counsel and at 376 U.S. 589 , 84 S. Ct. 849 the Court said: "The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444 , 84 L. Ed. 377 , 60 S. Ct. 321 . Contrariwise, a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality. Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3 , 99 L. Ed. 4 , 75 S. Ct. 1 . There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied. Nilva v. United States, 352 U.S. 385 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 415 , 77 S. Ct. 431 ; Torres v. United States, 270 F.2d 252 (C.A. 9th Cir.); c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 45 Md. App. 569 - State v. Temoney

3. ““We see no abuse of the court’s discretion in this case. Appellants waived the right to a jury trial one month prior to the date of trial and waited until the morning of trial to request permission to withdraw their waiver. At least one witness had come from a long distance for the trial and the other witnesses were also present in court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Md. App. 379 - Cole v. State