9 Md. App. 166 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 63 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the Burgett principle serves to exclude evidence of a prior conviction offered for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of an accused testifying on his own behalf when it is established that such conviction was obtained absent representation by counsel or a valid waiver thereof.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spaulding v. State · Simmons v. State

2. ““ . . . When the defendant objects to evidence of prior convictions under the Burgett principle, the court shall conduct a hearing. ‘At the hearing the State shall first have the burden of producing evidence of a prior conviction, unless admitted by the defendant, sufficient to justify a finding by the court that the defendant has suffered such previous conviction. . . . When this showing has been made the defendant must produce evidence tending to establish that his constitutional right to counsel was infringed in the prior proceeding at issue. . . . The burden is then upon the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not infringed at the prior proceeding . . . The court shall make a finding on the basis of the evidence thus produced and shall exclude from the trial on the merits any prior conviction found to be constitutionally invalid. Any conviction found to be constitutionally valid shall be admitted in evidence. .. .’ This procedure is to be followed whenever the Burgett principle is invoked to exclude evidence of a prior conviction, whether such conviction is to be used to support guilt or to enhance punishment for another offense.” (Footnotes omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Md. App. 179 - Carroll v. State · 67 Md. App. 159 - Middleton v. State

3. ““For example, that there were a number of prior convictions properly admitted, or other evidence clearly impeaching the credibility of the defendant would be of probative value in determining whether the admission of invalid convictions was harmless. And perhaps the gravamen of the offense, the conviction of which was erroneously admitted, could be weighed against the gravamina of the offenses, the convictions of which were properly admitted, in determining whether the error was harmless.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 Md. App. 436 - Johnson v. State · 11 Md. App. 423 - White v. State