40 Md. App. 297 - Gregory v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The document was offered without limitation as to purpose, and therefore for its truth. Thus, the jury was not merely advised of the fact that three staff psychiatrists had formed certain opinions; it was asked to accept as true—i.e., to believe—the opinion of these three physicians that appellant was ‘sane’ at the time he entered the bank. This is critical evidence of a testimonial nature, pertaining directly to appellant’s ultimate ‘guilt,’ that could, and should, have come viva voce—from the mouths of the witnesses in court, where, under the watchful eye of the jury, they could be cross-examined in the same manner as those physicians who did testify. There is nothing in the record to show that any of these three doctors were unavailable to appear in court; and we must assume that they did not appear simply because they were not summoned.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 41 Md. App. 705 - Grover v. State · State v. Garlick

2. ““One need do no more than peruse the reported appellate opinions touching upon the issue of a criminal defendant’s ‘sanity’ to see the frequency with which well-qualified and presumably competent practitioners express different— and sometimes widely varying—opinions concerning the critical issue. Considering the less-than-certain and ever shifting state of the art, these opinions, given their ultimate potential effect, cry out for cross-examination.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 Md. App. 34 - Rollins v. State · 164 Md. App. 1 - Logan v. State

3. “"What evidence is contained in it? For what purpose is it offered? Does the statement in it relate directly and critically to the defendant's guilt or innocence, or does it pertain to collateral issues? Is the document primarily testimonial or is it merely the recordation of a fact and easily and reliably proved by the document itself as by live testimony? If testimonial in nature, why is the author of the statements contained in it not in court? Is the information contained in it of a type that one may reasonably suppose its mere recordation in the ordinary course of business lends a sufficient reliability to be acceptable as trustworthy evidence?"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 Md. App. 348 - Reynolds v. State · 459 So. 2d 972 - Arthers v. State