Givens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, there must be an error or defect[-]some sort of deviation from a legal rule[-]that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned ... by the [defendant]. Second, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected the [defendant]'s substantial rights, which ... means [that the defendant] must demonstrate that [the error] affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings. Fourth and finally, if the above three prongs are satisfied, the [appellate court] has the discretion to remedy the error[-]discretion [that] ought to be exercised only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Meeting all four prongs is difficult, as it should be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 629 - Carroll v. State

2. ““[a] legal inconsistency ... occurs when an acquittal on one charge is conclusive as to an element which is necessary to[,J and inherent in[,J a charge on which a conviction has occurred. ... [I]f the essential elements of the counts of which the defendant is acquitted are identical and necessary to prove the count of which the defendant is convicted, then the verdicts are inconsistent. Verdicts of guilty of crime A but not guilty of crime B, where both crimes arise out of the same set of facts, are legally inconsistent when they necessarily involve the conclusion that the same essential element or elements of each crime were found both to exist and not to exist.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 233 Md. App. 630 - Ndunguru v. State

3. “[q]uite often[,] a defendant’s optimal choice will be to remain silent, thus waiving his [or her] challenge to the inconsistent verdicts and accepting the conviction that may be inconsistent. A defendant, aware of his or her guilt, or the overwhelming evidence of guilt, of all of the crimes of which he or she stands charged, may choose to accept the jury’s lenity. A defendant may be wise to accept the inconsistent conviction and accompanying sentence, rather than look a gift horse in the mouth. If the defendant objects to the inconsistent verdicts, the jury, given a second chance, may choose to remedy the error in a manner [that is] not in the defendant’s favor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 233 Md. App. 630 - Ndunguru v. State