157 Md. App. 101 - Cooley 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. ““On May 5, 2001, in the 700 block of Baker Street in Baltimore City, Anthony Williams, Jr. (Williams) was murdered. As a result of information provided by Eddie Terrell (Terrell), a friend of the victim, [Gibson and Cooley] were ultimately charged with that murder. On May 11, 2001, Terrell was arrested on an unrelated crime and questioned about the murder. At that point, he told detectives that he knew nothing about what happened to Williams. On May 21, however, he returned to the police station and gave a recorded statement that included the following assertions. “About 4:00 p.m. on May 5, 2001, Terrell and Williams brought drugs to a location on Pennsylvania Avenue, where they had ‘junkies’ sell the drugs for them. When the junkies ran out of the drugs supplied by Terrell and Williams, Cooley and four other males started selling drugs at that location. Williams told one of the people who had been selling drugs for him not to buy anything from Cooley and his companions. “Terrell and Williams then left the scene, cut across a playground, walked down Baker Street, and made a left onto Windsor Avenue. As they were walking down Windsor, a white Crown Victoria pulled around the corner. Cooley was driving that vehicle. Gibson got out of the passenger side of the car and asked Williams if Williams had ‘a lot of big words.’ At this point, Gibson started shooting. Terrell turned, ran down an alley, and hid in an old refrigerator until the shooting stopped. He then returned to the loc”

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

2. ““A trial judge has broad discretion in maintaining the security of the courtroom. Whittlesey v. State, 340 Md. 30, 84 , 665 A.2d 223 (1995), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 , 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996). That broad discretion, however, must be exercised by a judicial officer rather than by a law enforcement officer. In Bowers v. State, 306 Md. 120 , 507 A.2d 1072 , cert, denied, 479 U.S. 890 , 107 S.Ct. 292 , 93 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the Court of Appeals quoted with approval the following analysis found in United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 615 , final decision entered, 433 F.2d 663 (4th Cir.1970), cert, denied, 401 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 964 , 28 L.Ed.2d 229 (1971): “It is [the trial judge] who is best equipped to decide the extent to which security measures should be adopted to prevent disruption of the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape of the accused, and the prevention of other crimes.... As a discretionary matter, the district judge’s decision with regard to measure[s] for security is subject to a limited review to determine if it was abused. We stress that the discretion is that of the district judge. He may not ... delegate that discretion to the Marshal.””

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

3. ““At trial, Terrell denied having any knowledge of the shooting. He testified that he did not witness the crime, that his May 21st statement was a lie, that the information he gave the police on that day was based only on information he had received from people in the neighborhood, that he implicated [Gibson and Cooley] because he believed that he was going to be charged with the shooting, and that no one had warned him that [ ] [Gibson and Cooley] would kill him if he told the truth about what happened to Williams. “Because Terrell’s trial testimony was inconsistent with his May 21st statement, the State introduced that statement into evidence. The State also introduced evidence that drugs and ammunition of the same caliber as those recovered from the victim were found during a search of the home of Cooley’s girlfriend.””

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