Peterson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[t]he right of confrontation includes the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses about matters relating to their biases, interests, or motives to testify falsely." That principle is incorporated in Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(4), which provides that "The credibility of a witness may be attacked through questions asked of the witness, including questions that are directed at: ... Proving that the witness is biased, prejudiced, interested in the outcome of the proceeding, or has a motive to testify falsely." To comply with the Confrontation Clause, a trial court must allow a defendant a "threshold level of inquiry" that "expose[s] to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witnesses."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manchame-Guerra v. State · 235 Md. App. 175 - Ford v. State

2. “'[p]ending charges are not ... impeachment evidence,' and 'the existence of pending charges alone is not a sufficient predicate for [a question about bias or motive].'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manchame-Guerra v. State · 240 Md. App. 156 - Kazadi v. State

3. “In controlling the course of examination of a witness, a trial court may make a variety of judgment calls under Maryland Rule 5-611 as to whether particular questions are repetitive, probative, harassing, confusing, or the like. The trial court may also restrict cross-examination based on its understanding of the legal rules that may limit particular questions or areas of inquiry. Given that the trial court has its finger on the pulse of the trial while an appellate court does not, decisions of the first type should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Decisions based on a legal determination should be reviewed under a less deferential standard. Finally, when an appellant alleges a violation of the Confrontation Clause, an appellate court must consider whether the cumulative result of those decisions, some of which are judgment calls and some of which are legal decisions, denied the appellant the opportunity to reach the "threshold level of inquiry" required by the Confrontation Clause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manchame-Guerra v. State