164 Md. App. 652 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[THE STATE]: Where were you when you first saw the defendant? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: I was in the 1100 block of East Pratt Street. [THE STATE]: Where was he? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: He was on a bicycle heading—I guess it would be westbound on the 1100 block of East Pratt Street. [THE STATE]: If you could help us out, is that towards the Inner Harbor or away from the Inner Harbor? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: It would be towards the Inner Harbor. * * * [THE STATE]: What did you personally do? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: I attempted to approach the defendant. [THE STATE]: Okay. Did you walk toward him? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: Well, I had to run up to him because he was pedaling a bicycle away. [THE STATE]: Okay. Did you say, “Stop, police”? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: Well, what happened was, when I started running up towards him, he turned around and saw me, and he started to pedal away faster, and I did yell at that point to stop. [THE STATE]: Okay. Before he saw you—I mean, before he started to pedal away, when you first approached him, did you have your gun drawn? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: No. [THE STATE]: Did you say, “Stop, police”? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: No, I don’t think I did. [THE STATE]: Okay. As he pedaled away, what did you do? [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: What, after he saw me? [THE STATE]: Yes. [DETECTIVE MUNDY]: After he saw me and he pedaled away, I called it out to try to get him stopped. I did tell him at that point I was the police, to stop. Hi Hi H: [THE STATE]: Detective, before you saw the defendant fleeing on the bi”

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

2. “[THE STATE]: The State would also ask for [Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction—Criminal] 3:24,[ 1 ], which is flight of the defendant. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would like to be heard on that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the previous motion suppressed drugs that allegedly were found on Mr. Warren’s person—Mr. Thompson’s person—and in his statement, which was redacted from the jury, he says basically, “I ran because I was dirty.” That was redacted. Now, if you let this flight instruction in front of the jury, they’re going to think that he ran because he committed the shooting, not perhaps the real reason: he ran because he was dirty. That was kept from the jury and I think this is misleading, given the facts that the jury actually did hear. THE COURT: Well, the instruction says, “Flight under these circumstances may be motivated by a variety of factors, some of which are fully consistent with innocence,” or at least innocence of this crime. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I can’t think, even though you are reading that in a light that’s helpful to the defense, if any defense attorney has ever asked for a flight instruction, Your Honor. I definitely believe— THE COURT: No, why would the defense ask for a flight instruction. No, I know, that’s true. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, I think the State wants this because it’s going to say he ran because he’s the shooter and that’s not— THE COURT: Well, that is a permissible inference that they could draw from the evidence, but t”

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

3. “A person’s flight or concealment immediately after the commission of a crime or after being accused of committing a crime is not enough to establish guilt, but it is a fact that may be considered by you as evidence of guilt. Flight under these circumstances may be motivated by a variety of factors, some of which may be fully consistent with innocence. You must' first decide whether there’s evidence of flight. If you decide there’s evidence of flight, you must then decide whether this flight shows a consciousness of guilt.”

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