50 Md. App. 98 - Hardiman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]bsent some evidence of danger to the life or lives of the informant (or others) threatened by the revelation of the identity, there is a very small auncel on the State’s side of the scale. The right to produce one’s only defense must predominate over protecting the State’s flow of information — as important as that purpose may be. Id. at 113 , 466 A.2d 895 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Md. App. 101 - Jones v. State · 66 Md. App. 273 - Howard v. State

2. ““In Maryland, the prosecution has the privilege of withholding from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information to police officers concerning the commission of crimes. Nutter v. State, 8 Md.App. 635, 636 [ 262 A.2d 80 ] (1970). The privilege is not absolute. Whether the disclosure, once demanded, is to be compelled is within the sound discretion of the court. Gulick v. State, 252 Md. 348, 354 [ 249 A.2d 702 ] (1969). Such exercise of discretion calls for a balancing of the public interest in protecting the flow of information to the police against the individual’s equal, if not predominant, right to a fair defense on the merits. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , [ 77 S.Ct. 623, 629 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] (1957); Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 [ 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 ] (1978).’’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 78 Md. App. 395 - DeLuca v. State