84 Md. App. 165 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Each appellant contends that he was prejudiced by the joinder because each had defenses hostile to the other. The case law in Maryland, however, does not sweep as broadly as appellants think it does. A defendant is deemed to have been prejudiced by a joint trial when the joining of a co-defendant or co-defendants (1) permits the State to introduce, against a particular defendant, otherwise inadmissible evidence, and (2) that otherwise inadmissible evidence tends to contradict the defendant’s theory of the case. The permitted joinder in both Day and Erman allowed the State to introduce evidence against one defendant that could not have been introduced against him had he been tried separately. Moreover, the evidence which was otherwise inadmissible contradicted the defendant’s evidence, thereby prejudicing him. The joinder in the case at bar did not produce that result. The evidence admitted at trial would have been admissible against each co-defendant, irrespective of whether they received separate trials____” (emphasis supplied).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Md. App. 56 - Eiland v. State · 158 Md. App. 176 - Imes v. State

2. ““[i]f [mere] prejudice were the test, no evidence would ever be admitted. Parties ... have a right to introduce prejudicial evidence. Probative value is outweighed by the danger of ‘unfair’ prejudice when the evidence produces such an emotional response that logic cannot overcome prejudice or sympathy needlessly injected into the case.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alban v. Fiels · 203 Md. App. 343 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Pitts

3. “Once counsel learned Mr. Murphy would testify, they could have but did not move prior to trial for a continuance; or they could have but did not seek, prior to Murphy’s testifying, a continuance in order to ascertain what that testimony would be. Appellants apparently endeavored to exclude the testimony rather than pursue other forms of relief. They, we believe, took a calculated risk, i.e., they waited until the witness was called and then objected. In the vernacular, they went “for all or nothing at all.” Their miscalculation will not result in a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 132 Md. App. 657 - Jones v. State