136 Md. App. 27 - Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. May the State use statistical data and a product rule computation to prove the improbability of two SIDS deaths in a family where such evidence lacks an adequate foundation and is highly susceptible to misuse by the jury? 2. Did the trial judge take inadequate corrective action when the State’s Attorney argued to the jury that a statistical computation he performed accurately represented the 1 in 10 million probability of petitioner’s innocence? 3. May State experts in forensic pathology tell the jury that they drew incriminatory inferences from the defendant’s purchase of life insurance on his infant children and that they made credibility assessments of witnesses in the case? 4. Did the trial judge err in prohibiting the defense pathologist from explaining why, in his opinion, the defendant’s purchase of life insurance on his children is irrelevant to an expert pathologist’s opinion as to matter of death? 5. Did the trial judge err in admitting evidence of Appellant’s alleged murder of his infant daughter six years before the alleged murder in this case?””

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

2. ““[W]e merely note that appellant’s argument that SIDS deaths are interrelated is not totally accurate. It is accurate to assert that the deaths labeled as SIDS deaths may indeed have a connection. The inaccuracy arises once that, connection is discovered, because the deaths should no longer be identified as SIDS deaths. We must keep in mind that SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion that is subject to change if an actual cause is uncovered. The scientific literature has shown that, from what is currently known, SIDS risk factors are not interrelated but are independent. This is particularly true of multiple SIDS deaths in one family, where the likelihood of recurrence is less than one percent.””

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

3. ““During this trial, you have heard testimony regarding statistical probabilities. Certain experts in rendering their opinions relied in part on the statistical probabilities of a SIDS death occurring twice within the same family. You may consider this testimony only in evaluating the weight to be given to those opinions. The weight of the evidence does not depend on the number of witnesses on either side.””

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