McGhie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Claims of newly discovered evidence (a) 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. Petition requirements (b) 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. Notice of filing petition (c) (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. Notice to victim or victim’s representative (d) (1) Before a hearing is held on a petition filed under this section, the victim or victim’s representative shall be notified of the hearing as provided u”

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

2. “[t]he record makes plain that [petitioner had testified at trial to his actual innocence of the charged crimes. The State has not moved to dismiss the petition for lack of an averment of innocence and, in response to this Court’s questions at oral argument, had no quarrel with the adequacy of the petition. Moreover, the hearing judge evidently did not recognize any problem in this regard and proceeded to conduct a hearing on the merits of the petition. Under these circumstances, and detecting no jurisdictional concern with the lack of an averment of innocence, we have no just reason to direct a dismissal of the petition.”

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

3. “[W]hen an expert is called to testify, it is conceivable that, based on the cumulative body of evidence [that is] presented at a given trial, falsity regarding the expert's credibility and qualifications might create a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different.”

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