State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many police were present, what the officers and the defendant said and did, the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness. Facts pertaining to events before the interrogation are also relevant, especially how the defendant got to the place of questioning!],] whether he came completely on his own, in response to a police request or escorted by police officers. Finally, what happened after the interrogation!],] whether the defendant left freely, was detained or arrested may assist the court in determining whether the defendant, as a reasonable person, would have felt free to break off the questioning.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Aguilera-Tovar v. State · 222 Md. App. 620 - Norwood v. State

2. “In this case, [Thomas] was arrested twenty minutes after the questioning was concluded. As explained below, however, this did not transform the questioning into custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court of Connecticut has stated that, although the failure to arrest a suspect supports a finding of no custody, the reverse may not be true; that the defendant was arrested after the interrogation does not necessarily mean that he or she was in custody during the interrogation. State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385 , 736 A.2d 857, 876 (1999). * * * Detective Thorpe testified, without contradiction, that when she began the interview, she did not intend to place [Thomas] under arrest. Her intentions changed “toward the end of the interview,” when [Thomas] told her that he “wasn’t coping well,” and she “became concerned about his safety.” Although Detective Thorpe’s subjective intent is not a factor, it is consistent with the manner of the questioning here. [Thomas]’s arrest under the facts of this case should be given neutral status; it does not weigh in favor of or against a finding of custody.”

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

3. “Another factor to consider in the custody analysis is “ ‘whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness.’ ” Owens, 399 Md. at 429 , 924 A.2d 1072 (quoting Whitfield, 287 Md. at 141 , 411 A.2d 415 ). This factor is relevant, however, only if it is communicated to the suspect because “custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323, 325, 114 S.Ct. 1526 . Here, [Thomas] knew, before arriving at the police station, based on his conversation with his wife, that he was being investigated for sexually abusing his daughter. At the beginning of the interview, [Thomas] advised the officers that he knew he was there to talk about his daughter, stating that it was “kind of hard to talk about.” Detective Thorpe told [Thomas] that they had spoken with C., and she told them “some things that have been going on for quite some time between you and her.” [Thomas] then admitted to touching and abusing his daughter.”

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