90 Md. App. 392 - State v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(e)(1) The District Court is deprived of jurisdiction if a defendant is entitled to and demands a jury trial at any time prior to trial in the District Court. (2)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, unless the penalty for the offense with which the defendant is charged permits imprisonment for a period in excess of 90 days, a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial in a criminal case. (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, the presiding judge of the District Court may deny a defendant a jury trial if: 1. The prosecutor recommends in open court that the judge not impose a penalty of imprisonment for a period in excess of 90 days, regardless of the permissible statutory or common law maximum; 2. The judge agrees not to impose a penalty of imprisonment for a period in excess of 90 days; and 3. The judge agrees not to increase the defendant's bond if an appeal is noted. (iii) The State may not demand a jury trial. (f)(1) Except as provided in Title 4, Subtitle 5 of the Family Law Article, the District Court does not have jurisdiction of an offense otherwise within the District Court's jurisdiction if a person is charged: (i) With another offense arising out of the same circumstances but not within the District Court's jurisdiction; or (ii) In the circuit court with an offense arising out of the same circumstances and within the concurrent jurisdictions of the District Court and the circuit court described under subse”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 Md. App. 262 - Fielding v. State

2. ““Nowhere in its opinion did the Grady Court suggest that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple trials when one or more counts are left unresolved following an initial trial due to jury deadlock, the grant of a new trial, or reversal on appeal. Any doubt that the successive trial holding in Grady is ordinarily limited to instances where the State has failed to bring and join for trial all charges arising from a single episode is dispelled by the Court’s concluding remarks: ‘With adequate preparation and foresight, the State could have prosecuted Corbin for the offenses charged in the traffic tickets and the subsequent indict ment in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding this double jeopardy question.’ 495 U.S. [at] 524, 110 S.Ct. at 2095 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 566 . In the instant case, the State did precisely what was urged in Grady . Therefore, the double jeopardy question at issue in Grady has been avoided.” (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 Md. App. 456 - Mauk v. State

3. “"The very possibility of confusion on this score might never have arisen if Sir William Blackstone had not, perhaps inadvertently, substituted the confusingly broad term ‘double jeopardy 1 for the original and clearer usage ‘former jeopardy.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 Md. App. 456 - Mauk v. State