51 Md. App. 408 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““I have reviewed these articles, and for the most part do not find that they are prejudicial to the defendant in this in any event. The court does not feel that the defense has at this time shown that the pretrial publicity in and of itself has been so massive and widespread that it is clearly prejudicial, or that the publicity has been so inherently prejudicial that it saturated the community and that the remedial step of voir dire would be meaningless. Since the court does not find that pretrial publicity to be so massive and widespread and so inherently prejudicial, it is going to deny the motion at this point. However, according to what [the prosecutor] has told the court, Mr. Dobbins’ case is scheduled for trial in the very near future. And, if there are in fact articles generated in the local media as a result of that trial then, [defense counsel], you may wish to request the court to reconsider its decision. Additionally, during examination of jurors, if it appears that the prospective jurors would not be able to give Ms. Bailey a fair and impartial trial, then the court would reconsider. I would point out that the voir dire examination is usually a sufficient mechanism to assure that a person does obtain a fair and impartial trial despite the pretrial publicity. * * * * * * So as I said, there could be more information available to you gentlemen and it could be brought to the attention of the court. The court may reconsider, it could possibly change its decision. But ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 84 Md. App. 323 - Bailey v. State

2. “[T]he rule has been relaxed so as to allow a conviction of perjury to stand if there are two witnesses, or one witness corroborated by circumstances proved by independent testimony. The testimony of one witness and other independent corroborative evidence must be of such a nature so as to be of equal weight to that of at least a second witness, thus foreclosing any reasonable hypothesis other than the defendant’s guilt. It has been held that circumstantial evidence, including documentary evidence, springing from the defendant himself, may take the place of a “living witness.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mason v. State

3. “When a defendant is charged with an offense for which the maximum penalty is not death and either party flies a suggestion under oath that the party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the action is pending, the court shall order that the action be transferred for trial to another court having jurisdiction only if it is satisfied that the suggestion is true or that there is reasonable ground for it____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 118 Md. App. 590 - Stouffer v. State