State v. Werner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 56 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he failure of a sex offense victim to complain at the time of the crime or shortly thereafter is ... an impeaching circumstance which, if elicited by the defense, can then be explained by the State. In the instant case, however, the State impeached its own witness by bringing out on direct examination the fact that she waited five years to complain. This was, it would seem, inadmissible evidence as part of the State’s case in chief. But, whether or not inadmissible, it was not necessary. The State itself, by this “bootstrap” operation, created the alleged need for presenting evidence of other crimes by the defendant. The Court of Special Appeals correctly held that, under these circumstances, the evidence of other offenses was inadmissible.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Choate v. State · 83 Md. App. 279 - Cole v. State

2. ““In prosecutions for sex offenses, evidence of the victim’s complaint, coupled with the circumstances of the complaint, is admissible as part of the prosecution’s case if the complaint was made in a recent period of time after the offense.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Choate v. State · 137 Md. App. 402 - Nelson v. State

3. “[W]e point out that the disputed testimony was initially introduced by the State, apparently in anticipation of the defense seizing upon any unexplained delay as an attack upon the credibility of the prosecuting witness, Amy. Had the State remained silent regarding the lapse of time from the last act of intercourse until Amy’s complaint, Appellant’s dilemma would have been whether to avoid the issue and lose the advantage of bringing the delay to the attention of the jury, or to cross-examine Amy concerning her five year silence, with the attendant risk that her answers would reveal the very evidence the Appellant sought to suppress. If the testimony of other crimes came about through cross-examination by counsel for Appellant, or from other defense testimony, we perceive no reason why it should not have been admitted. The State’s initial presentation of the evidence in anticipation of a defense tactic that may well have never taken place, however, is another matter. We conclude that the introduction of this testimony by the State in its case in chief was prejudicial error.”

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