Williams 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. “(d) Disclosure by the State’s Attorney. (5) Exculpatory information. All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to exculpate the defendant or negate or mitigate the defendant's guilt or punishment as to the offense charged; (6) Impeachment information. All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that tends to impeach a State’s witness, including: (A) evidence of prior conduct to show the character of the witness for untruthfulness pursuant to Rule 5 — 608(b); (B) a relationship between the State's Attorney and the witness, including the nature and circumstances of any agreement, understanding, or representation that may constitute an inducement for the cooperation or testimony of the witness; (C) prior criminal convictions, pending charges, or probationary status that may be used to impeach the witness, but the State’s Attorney is not required to investigate the criminal record of the witness unless the State’s Attorney knows or has reason to believe that the witness has a criminal record; (D) an oral statement of the witness, not otherwise memorialized, that is materially inconsistent with another statement made by the witness or with a statement made by another witness; (E) a medical or psychiatric condition or addiction of the witness that may impair the witness’s ability to testify truthfully or accurately, but the State’s Attorney is not required to inquire into a witness’s medical, psychiatric, or addiction his”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ellsworth v. Baltimore Police Department

2. “The decision as to which remedy or sanction to impose [for a discovery violation] generally rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557, 570 , 919 A.2d 49, 57 (2007)____Ordinarily, a court will “impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules.” Thomas, 397 Md. at 571 , 919 A.2d at 58 . This Court has explained that in remedying a discovery violation, the court should weigh [“](1) the reasons why the disclosure was not made; (2) the existence and amount of any prejudice to the opposing party; (3) the feasability of curing any prejudice ...; and (4) any other relevant circumstances.” [Thomas ] at 570-71, 919 A.2d at 57-58 ; see also Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376, 390-91 , 456 A.2d 29, 37 (1983) (enumerating similar factors and stating that the factors “do not lend themselves to a compartmental analysis”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beka Industries, Inc. v. Worcester County Board of Education

3. ““The way to determine whether or not motives are similar is to look at the issues and the context in which the opportunity for examination previously arose, and compare that to the issues and context in which the testimony is currently proffered. The similar motive inquiry is essentially a hypothetical one: is the motive to develop the testimony at the prior time similar to the motive that would exist if the declarant were produced (which of course he is not) at the current trial or healing?””

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