Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The unclear and inexplicable circumstances surrounding the pedigree and disposition of State's Exhibit # 4 present different potential deprivations of appellants' rights. We cannot know whether appellants were denied the right to be present at a time—clearly a critical stage of the proceedings—that the court considered and responded to the jury note. We are further not aided by the affidavits submitted by counsel indicating that they have no recollection of the existence of—or response to—the note, or by the court's affidavit indicating that it would have routinely advised the jury that it should rely on its recollection of the evidence and that the disposition of the note may have been transcribed during another court proceeding. * * * "We hold that the failure to afford appellants the opportunity to be present when or if the court disposed of the note in the case at hand constituted error under Denicolis . But, in this case, where we cannot know whether the court acted at what would have undisputedly been a `critical stage,' the mere failure of the jury to receive a response to its communication denied appellants' rights. Stated otherwise, even if Denicolis were arguably not implicated, an equally significant right is denied."”

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

2. “Neither Courts nor Hollie identified appellants as the shooters. Courts testified that, at the time of the shooting, he was sitting by himself on the steps of a house in the middle of the 1700 block of Port Street drinking beer and Jack Daniels. Bowens or “Buck” was down the street. At some point, Courts heard a car slam on its brakes. The car was gray and had “dark tinted” windows. Someone wearing a baseball cap—Courts did not see who as he kept his head down—“hopped out” of the car and shot him. Courts attempted to flee, but fell to the ground and the gunman stood over him and continued shooting. Courts was later taken to Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was treated for ten gunshot wounds to his chest, stomach, side, back, hip and arm. Courts subsequently learned that Bowens and Hollie had also been shot and that Bowens had died. Courts did not recall Bowens saying anything to him or to anyone in the gray car prior to the shooting. He also was not acquainted with Colkley or Fields and did not know why anyone, including Colkley and Fields, would want to kill him or Bowens.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 204 Md. App. 593 - COLKLEY & FIELDS v. State

3. “[a]lthough we do not know what action was taken in response to the jury's note, what we do know is that the note was submitted and marked as an exhibit in the proceedings and what we must surmise is that there is a real possibility, if not probability, that the jury never received an answer to a substantive question it deemed important to its determination of who murdered [the victim].. . .”

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