42 Md. App. 730 - Ehrlich v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The role of excluding probative evidence in order to serve the extrinsic, prophylactic purpose of making the police behave is a role exclusively for the court. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the jury function. The jury is assigned the sole mission of determining ‘Whodunnit?’ Evidence that is competent, material and relevant and which helps the jury determine the answer to that ultimate riddle comes in. Evidence which is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant and does not assist in answering the riddle stays out. Physical evidence—guns, bloodstains, fingerprints, contraband—is just as helpful to the jury in determining ‘Whodunnit?’ whether the police have scrupulously obeyed the Bill of Rights or have shamelessly trampled it underfoot. The latter concern is a very real one to society at large and to the courts in administering the exclusionary rule, but it is simply not the concern of a criminal jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Md. App. 747 - Green v. State

2. ““In the case at bar, all that matters to the jury is that marijuana was found in the trunk of the appellant’s automobile. The existence of probable cause, which the appellant wished to argue to the jury, is immaterial to the only issue before the jury: 'Did the appellant possess contraband marijuana?’ Whether the police entered the trunk of the automobile with probable cause or upon the most cavalier of fishing expeditions is immaterial to the issue of criminal possession____ The jury has all that it can handle in determining guilt or innocence. It is not the function of the jury 'to police the police’ by denying itself probative evidence.” (Citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Md. App. 747 - Green v. State

3. “curious provision of the Maryland Constitution with respect to the jury's being judges of the law has only meant that where there are conflicting interpretations of law, the jury may have both interpretations argued to it and the jury may choose between, and further that the jury shall decide whether the law should be applied in dubious factual situations.”

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