Gardner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 58 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It seems to us that reason and sound logic do not support the rule where one of two conspirators is convicted in a separate trial, that he shall be discharged because the second may be acquitted for a multitude of reasons having nothing to do with his guilt. The acquittal of the second conspirator could well result from the death or absence of an important state witness, the incompetency of a confession of the convicted conspirator in the second trial, the incompetency of a plea of guilty entered by the convicted conspirator at his trial, or for any other reason that would amount to a failure of proof.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 Md. App. 450 - Harris v. State · 119 N.C. App. 375 - State v. Soles

2. ““This proposition is recognized in the law as the rule of consistency: that ‘as one person alone cannot be guilty of conspiracy, when all but one conspirator are acquitted, conviction of the remaining conspirator cannot stand.’ Hurwitz v. State, 200 Md. 578 , 92 A.2d 575, 581 (1952). The rule developed many years ago when the practice was to try all persons charged with the crime of conspiracy together. Under such circumstances, common sense dictated that verdicts based on the same evidence and circumstances should be consistent. Accordingly the rule has developed primarily regarding joint trials.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 Md. App. 450 - Harris v. State · State v. Johnson

3. ““The crime of conspiracy requires ‘a combination of two or more persons, [who] by some concerted action [seek] to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose; or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.’ Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 607 , 71 A. 1058 (1909); State v. Buchanan, 5 H. & J. 259 (1821)____ The crime is complete without any overt act and may be proved by circumstances giving rise to an inference of common design. The gravamen of the crime is the illegal scheme or design harbored by at least two persons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Birchead v. State