5 Md. App. 652 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 45 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The evidence did not establish that the appellant made request for final disposition of the untried complaints within 30 days of notification of them. The Act was not available to the appellant for that reason. Even on an assumption that the letter of 15 September 1967 was such request, and that it was filed on time, it was not accompanied by a statement from the warden containing the information required by the Act. The Act was not available to the appellant for that reason. And even if the evidence before the court be considered as showing that the appellant was precluded from filing the request as required because the warden, although he had knowledge, did not inform the appellant of the source and contents of the untried complaints and of the appellant’s right to request final disposition thereof, [Footnote omitted] no relief was available to the appellant under the Act. And even had the evidence proved that the appellant made request as required but that the warden failed to deliver it, accompanied by the statement, to the appropriate State’s attorney and the court, no relief was available to the appellant under the Act. In short, for reasons we have hereinbefore stated, since it was not established that the appellant and the prison officials did all that they were called upon to do by the provisions of the Act, the Act was not invoked, no matter where the fault lay.’ (Emphasis supplied.) 5 Md. App. at 665-66 , 249 A. 2d at 476-77 .” State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195 , 328”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Barnes · 24 Md. App. 567 - Davis v. State

2. ““The Sergeant, out of an abundance of caution, followed the Miranda procedures, but we do not think it was necessary in the circumstances. Even though the appellant was ‘in custody’ by reason of his incarceration for an unrelated offense we do not believe that the challenged statement was obtained under circumstances likely to affect substantially the appellant’s will to resist and compelled him to speak where he would not otherwise have done so freely. See People v. Rodney P., 233 N.E.2d 255 , 286 N.Y.S.2d 225 . The dangers Miranda intended to guard against were here not present. We do not think that the appellant was ‘swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces, and subjected to * * * techniques of persuasion.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Md. App. 361 - Cummings v. State · 518 So. 2d 793 - Whittle v. State

3. “"The warden, commissioner of corrections, or other official having custody of the prisoner shall promptly inform him of the source and contents of any detainer lodged against him and shall also inform him of his right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment, information, or complaint on which the detainer is based."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 Colo. App. 512 - People v. Lincoln · 20 Md. App. 262 - Barnes v. State