116 Md. App. 546 - Holmes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Consistent statements made prior to the alleged fabrication surely rebut the allegation of fabrication, but ‘there may [also] be some rebuttal value in a statement made after some motive existed, but before it became strong.’ Likewise, ‘[a] postmotive statement is relevant to rebut ... a charge of recent fabrication based on improper motive ... when the speaker made the prior statement while affected by a far more powerful motive to tell the truth.’ ” (Citations omitted).”

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

2. ““[B]y admitting Thompson’s prior inconsistent statement, defense counsel impeached Thompson’s trial testimony. The State had the right to rehabilitate her, and met the task by submitting Thompson’s prior consistent statement. True, the consistent statement did not precede the inconsistent statement, but a trial court could properly find that it had “rebuttal value’ nonetheless.” (Citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Holmes v. State

3. ““The following statements previously made by a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and who is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (b) A statement that is consistent with the declarant’s testimony, if the statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of fabrication, or improper influence or motive.””

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