75 Md. App. 560 - Erdman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “26A Effect of a Finding of Not Criminally Responsible By Reason of Insanity Ladies and gentlemen, of the jury you are entitled to know the legal effect of your verdict in this case. Keep in mind, at all times, that your decision should be based solely upon the evidence that you have heard. You, of course, are aware of the consequences of a verdict, reached by you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, of guilty or not guilty, but a verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity may not have such a commonly understood meaning. If Edward Clark, the Defendant is found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, the Court has the authority to commit the Defendant to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for institutional, in-patient care and treatment. His commitment is for a period of time wherein his behavior is monitored by the institutional staff. When the Defendant is viewed by the staff that he is not a danger to himself or to the person or property of others, he is then entitled to a hearing within the institution. The burden of proof is with the committed individual to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a danger to himself or to the person or property of others if discharged or released from confinement within the conditions imposed by the Court. The findings and recommendations of the Board are then forwarded to the Court for the final determination of whether the Defendant should remain committed; be conditionally released; ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Erdman v. State · 80 Md. App. 405 - Clark v. State

2. “[t]he court should instruct the jury as to the dispositional consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental nonresponsibility [insanity].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Erdman v. State · 80 Md. App. 405 - Clark v. State

3. “Both stances are based on assumptions about jury knowledge and the effects of instructions. Given the absence of solid empirical data supporting either view, common sense and policy considerations must provide guidance. Providing for an instruction seems the most sensible approach given the potential for prejudice to defendants when the alternative course is followed. Particularly in cases in which defendants are charged with violent crimes (which is usually the case if the nonresponsibility issue is tried to a jury, as opposed to a judge), juries need to be told about the effect of a finding of mental nonresponsibility [insanity] if the possibility of a serious injustice is to be avoided. The fear of compromise verdicts is misplaced.”

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