48 Md. App. 669 - Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 69 Md. App. 124 - Exxon Corp. v. Yarema (1986), Gary v. State (1996)
36 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Giordano · State v. Siegel · Madison v. State · Brown v. State · State v. Bailey
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial judge’s role is that of an impartial arbitrator and that appearance is not generally compatible with an inquisitorial role. It is the better practice for a trial judge to inject himself [or herself] as little as possible in a jury case ... because of the inordinate influence that may emanate from his [or her] position if jurors interpret his [or her] questions as indicative of his [or her] opinion.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was clear to the issuing judge and to the judge hearing the suppression motion, and it is clear to us, that the wiretap "procedures were not. .. routinely employed as the initial step in criminal investigation.” United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974), which is the danger the provision in question was intended to guard against. As pointed out by the trial judge, the statute was not intended to foreclose electronic surveillance, but rather, as Giordano suggests, it is to assure an issuing judge by showing the unlikelihood of success, or the prior failure of routine procedures, that wiretapping is not being asked for as an initial convenience.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In light of all of the testimony in the case, we do not find that the judge’s attitude reflected prejudicial unfairness, partiality, or an opinion of guilt. At worst the interrogation appeared to question some of the defenses upon which appellant sought to rely; it did not, however, manifest an opinion adverse to appellant or adverse to those defenses. This would appear to be where the line is drawn. We admonish any trial judge, however, to avoid brinkmanship and to sin, if at all, on the side of silence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.