Foster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

75 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[S]ufficient indicia of reliability were present to assure the proffered testimony’s trustworthiness. The husband’s threat was made spontaneously during an argument with the victim over the payment of rent, and was a statement against interest. The victim’s extrajudicial statement was made spontaneously at a time when she was excited, and under circumstances in which she had no reason to lie. Additionally, her extrajudicial statement was made shortly before the murder to a close acquaintance with whom she had previously exchanged information about tenants. Both the accused’s husband’s threat and the victim’s extrajudicial statement were corroborated by other evidence — the accused’s husband’s two written confessions, the accused’s testimony that her husband was present at the time of the commission of the crime, and the accused’s husband’s testimony that he cleaned up the room in which the murder took place, removed and disposed of the body, and shared in the proceeds of the robbery. Finally, if there was any question about the reliability of either the husband’s or the victim’s extrajudicial statements, the accused’s husband was present in the courtroom, under oath, and was available for cross-examination by the State before the jury. Thus, the testimony rejected by the trial court bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness. Under the circumstances here, the accused’s constitutional right to call a witness in her own behalf, a right that directly affected the ascertainmen”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 193 Md. App. 259 - CANELA AND PEREZ v. State · Powell v. State

2. ““This Court has recognized that an arrest may not be used as a pretext to search for evidence____ Additionally, this Court has stated that when an arresting officer has two or more purposes for making an arrest, one of which is to make a valid arrest for the commission of a crime and the other of which is to obtain evidence of a different crime, the duality of purpose will not, in and of itself, transform the arrest into a pretext arrest.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 132 Md. App. 510 - Wilson v. State · 93 Md. App. 134 - Thanner v. State

3. “the area `within his immediate control' — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lee v. State · Ricks v. State