168 Md. App. 682 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To be relevant, it is not necessary that evidence of this nature conclusively establish guilt. The proper inquiry is whether the evidence could support an inference that the defendant’s conduct demonstrates a consciousness of guilt. If so, the evidence is relevant and generally admissible.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Simms · Thomas v. State

2. ““Federal courts have also held that resistance to police requests for evidence could support an inference of consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 846 (7th Cir.1989) (stating that ‘evidence of the defendant’s refusal to furnish writing exemplars, like evidence of flight and concealment, is probative of consciousness of guilt’); United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 313-14 (2d Cir.1983) (holding that evidence that defendants refused to permit investigators to obtain palm prints was admissible to show consciousness of guilt). Appellant courts in sister states have held that evidence of the refusal to provide a blood sample is admissible to support an inference of consciousness of guilt. [People v. Farnam, 28 Cal.4th 107 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 47 P.3d 988, 1022 (2002)] (stating that evidence that the defendant initially resisted providing blood and hair samples, despite a court order that he do so, was admissible to show consciousness of guilt); [People v. Edwards, 241 Ill.App.3d 839 , 182 Ill.Dec. 428 , 609 N.E.2d 962, 966 (1993) ] (stating that ‘Defendant’s initial refusal to submit to blood testing has some tendency to indicate a consciousness of guilt and is therefore relevant and generally admissible’).””

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

3. “That’s nice because the State of Maryland hasn't.” The trial judge did not allow this portion of Agent Purscell’s testimony to be repeated at trial. 4 . Agent Purseell had called the State’s Attorney's office in response to a subpoena he had received because he wanted to find out if he was needed for trial. Agent Purseell had been subpoenaed because he was involved in the chain of custody on the vacuum fibers. As there had been no prior knowledge of any statement by petitioner to Agent Purseell, the subpoena was unrelated to the”

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