194 Md. App. 629 - Cox v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““First, evidence obtained after initial unlawful governmental activity will be purged of its taint if it was inevitable that the police would have discovered the evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387 (1984). Second, the taint will be purged upon a showing that the evidence was derived from an independent source. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 239-242 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1938-1940 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1164-1166 (1967). The third exception ... will allow the use of evidence where it can be shown that the so-called poison of the unlawful governmental conduct is so attenuated from the evidence as to purge any taint resulting from said conduct. See Wong Sun [v. United States], 371 U.S. [471,] 488, 83 S.Ct. [407,] at 417, 9 L.Ed.2d at 455 [1963].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 205 Md. App. 607 - Kamara v. State · Cox v. State

2. “[a] defendant seeking shelter under the umbrella of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has to prove each of two propositions: 1) the primary illegality, to wit, that the tree was poisonous; and 2) the cause and effect relationship between the primary illegality and the evidence in issue, to wit, that the evidence was, indeed, the identifiable fruit of that particular tree.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 495 - Spell v. State · Cox v. State

3. “We review the Circuit Court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and “consider only the facts and information contained in the record of the suppression hearing.” Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 498 , 924 A.2d 1129, 1135 (2007). “The factual findings of the suppression court and its conclusions regarding the credibility of testimony are accepted unless clearly erroneous.” Prioleau v. State, 411 Md. 629, 638 , 984 A.2d 851, 856 (2009) (quoting Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68, 82-83 , 939 A.2d 689, 697 (2008)). The foregoing notwithstanding, we “undertake our own independent constitutional appraisal of the record by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the present case.” Id. (internal citations omitted).”

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