Simms v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 8-201. DNA evidence—Postconviction review. [[Image here]] (b) Filing of petition.—Notwithstanding any other law governing postconviction relief, a person who is convicted of a crime of violence under § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article may file a petition: (1) for DNA testing of scientific identification evidence that the State possesses that is related to the judgment of conviction; or (2) for a search by a law enforcement agency of a law enforcement data base or log for the purpose of identifying the source of physical evidence used for DNA testing. (c) New trial—A petitioner may move for a new trial under this section on the grounds that the conviction was based on unreliable scientific identification evidence and a substantial possibility exists that the petitioner would not have been convicted without the evidence. (d) Findings requiring DNA testing.— (1)Subject to subsection (e) of this section, a court shall order DNA testing if the court finds that: (1) a reasonable probability exists that the DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of wrongful conviction or sentencing; and (ii) the requested DNA test employs a method of testing generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. (2) A court shall order a data base search by a law enforcement agency if the court finds that a reasonable probability exists that the data base search will produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a”

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

2. “§ 8-301. Petition for writ of actual innocence. (a) Grounds.—A person charged by indictment or criminal information with a crime triable in circuit court and convicted of that crime may, at any time, file a petition for writ of actual innocence in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction was imposed if the person claims that there is newly discovered evidence that: (1) creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different, as that standard has been judicially determined; and (2) could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331. (b) Requirements.—A petition filed under this section shall: (1) be in writing; (2) state in detail the grounds on which the petition is based; (3) describe the newly discovered evidence; (4) contain or be accompanied by a request for hearing if a hearing is sought; and (5) distinguish the newly discovered evidence claimed in the petition from any claims made in prior petitions. (c) Notice and response to filing.— (1) A petitioner shall notify the State in writing of the filing of a petition under this section. (2) The State may file a response to the petition within 90 days after receipt of the notice required under this subsection or within the period of time that the court orders. (d) Notice to victim or victim’s representative.— (1) Before a hearing is held on a petition filed under this section, the victim or victim’s representative shall be notified of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Matthews

3. “[bjiological evidence” to include “any blood, hair, saliva, semen, epithelial cells, buccal cells or other bodily substances from which genetic marker groupings may be obtained.” Crim. Proc. § 8-201(a)(2). 17 . S.B. 486 was the Senate version of the bill that became Crim. Proc. § 8-301. 18 . H.B. 366 was the House of Delegates version of the bill that became Crim. Proc. § 8-301. 19 . We have generally held that “remedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement of rights and the redress of injuries.”

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