99 Md. App. 335 - Rheubottom v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2010
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sullivan v. Louisiana · Dorsey v. State · Wilhelm v. State · United States v. Headspeth · Harris v. State
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.
“It is, of course, true that just because a prosecutor makes an improper jury argument this does not necessarily “constitute reversible error.” Wilhelm [v. State ], 272 Md. [404] at 431, 326 A.2d 707 [at 724 (1974) ] ... In Wilhelm, Judge O’Donnell stated: There are no hard-and-fast limitations within which the argument of earnest counsel must be confined—no well- defined bounds beyond which the eloquence of an advocate shall not soar. Id. at 413, 326 A.2d [at 714]. While we do not disagree with that proposition, surely there are also depths into which the unfair argument of a too zealous advocate cannot be permitted to sink. The rule is that reversal is warranted if “it appears that the jury were actually misled or were likely to have been misled or influenced to the prejudice of the accused.” Wood v. State, 192 Md. 643, 652 , 65 A.2d 316 [, 320] (1949); see also Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462, 473-74 , 180 A.2d 682 [, 688] (1962); Kellum v. State, 223 Md. 80, 88 , 162 A.2d 473 [, 478] (1960) (quoting Wood, supra).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Donaldson v. State“There are no hard-and-fast limitations within which the argument of earnest counsel must be confined — no well-defined bounds beyond which the eloquence of an advocate shall not soar... .He may indulge in oratorical conceit or flourish in illustrations and metaphorical allusions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.