78 Md. App. 320 - Sharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In seeking the meaning of the term, it is significant that the Rules Committee, in its 95th Report to the Court of Appeals recommending amendment of Rule 4-313 to conform to § 8-301 as amended by the legislature, explained one of the ways in which the legislature amended the statute, thusly: ‘Second, it deletes the provision applicable to “all other cases” that all defendants are considered a single party, thus providing each defendant with four peremptory challenges, whether or not the interests of the defendants are mutually adverse or hostile.’ The Committee noted that its proposed amendment of the rule would bring the rule into conformance with the statute as amended. The Court of Appeals accepted the recommendation and adopted the proposed amendments. We hold, therefore, that both the statute and the rule contemplate that each defendant, rather than each group of defendants, be permitted four peremptory challenges.””

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

2. ““[I]t is necessary that we first review the statute and the rule as they are presently constituted and then review them in context, i.e., compare them to the statute and the rule which they replaced. That review makes patent that the term ‘each party’ is at least ambiguous. It could have the meaning which was deleted from the prior statute and rule or it could mean, as alleged by appellants, the equivalent of ‘each defendant’.” (footnote omitted).”

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

3. ““(b) Other cases. — In all other cases, each party is permitted four peremptory challenges; all defendants are considered a single party for this purpose. (1) If it appears that the trial involves two or more defendants having adverse or hostile interest, the court may allow additional peremptory challenges; (2) No defendant shall be allowed more than four peremptory challenges.””

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