State v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “depends upon the degree of confidence with which four inferences can be drawn: (1) from the defendant's behavior to flight; (2) from flight to consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt to consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged; and (4) from consciousness of guilt concerning the crime charged to actual guilt of the crime charged. [ Id. at 420 , 625 A. 2d 1102 (quoting United States v. Myers, 550 F. 2d 1036, 1049 (5th Cir.1977) (emphasis added)).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 N.J. Super. 169 - State v. Latney · 441 N.J. Super. 533 - State v. Randolph

2. “circumstances present and unexplained which ... reasonably justify an inference that it was done with a consciousness of guilt and pursuant to an effort to avoid an accusation based on that guilt.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 415 N.J. Super. 169 - State v. Latney · 285 N.J. Super. 589 - State v. Jordan

3. “There has been some testimony in the case from which you may infer that the defendant fled shortly after the alleged commission of the crime____The question of whether the defendant fled after the commission of the crime is another question of fact for your determination. Mere departure from a place where a crime has been committed does not constitute flight. If you find that the defendant, fearing that an accusation or arrest would be made against (himlher) on the charge involved in the indictment, took refuge in flight for the purpose of evading the accusation or arrest on that charge, then you may consider such flight in connection with all the other evidence in the case, as an indication or proof of consciousness of guilt. Flight may only be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt if you should determine that the defendant’s purpose in leaving was to evade accusation or arrest for the offense charged in the indictment [Model Jury Charge Criminal, “Flight” (Apr. 24, 2000) (emphasis supplied).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ingram