Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 130 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““According to the State’s evidence, the defendant Evans and Anthony Grandison entered into an agreement whereby Evans would kill David Scott Piechowicz and his wife, Cheryl, because the couple were scheduled to testify against Grandison in a narcotics case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Evans was to receive $9,000.00 from Grandison for performing the murders. David Scott Piechowicz and Cheryl Piechowicz were employed at the Warren House Motel in Baltimore County. On April 28, 1983, Susan Kennedy, the sister of Cheryl Piechowicz, was working in place of Cheryl at the Warren House Motel. The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, on April 28th, Evans went to the motel and, not knowing the Piechowiczs, shot David Scott Piechowicz and Susan Kennedy with a MAC-11 machine pistol. Nineteen bullets were fired at the victims, who died from the multiple gunshot wounds. A two count indictment was filed against Evans and Grandison in the United States District Court. They were charged with violating the Piechowiczs’ civil rights by interfering with their right to be witnesses in a judicial proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 , and with witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 . Subsequently the present case began with a four count indictment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, charging Evans and Grandison each with two counts of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Smith · Evans v. State

2. ““It is also significant that neither the judge nor defense counsel questioned the explanation of the prosecutor or requested further particulars. This may well have represented a tactical decision by the defendant’s counsel, to require the court’s decision to be made upon the weighing of the defendant’s prima facie showing against the rather general response of the prosecutor, as opposed to seeking specific information from the prosecutor as to each excused venireman and running the risk of further strengthening the prosecutor’s explanation. For whatever reason, the explanation of the prosecutor stood uncontroverted and unimpeaehed.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. State · Evans v. Smith

3. “Although it is doubtful that any substantial question was presented concerning the competency of Sparrow to testify, as opposed to her willingness to he when it suited her purposes, Judge ... charted a careful course and elected to voir dire the witness..;. ... There was evidence that Sparrow had given various inconsistent versions ..., had lied under oath, was a prostitute and a user of drugs, ... and indicated that she would he when it suited her purposes. At the same time ... she understood and appreciated the nature of an oath and possessed the capacity to observe and describe correctly the facts____ The issue [raised by Evans] was one of credibility, not of admissibility----”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perry v. State · 98 Md. App. 149 - Bayne v. State