Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 93 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In his confession Woods admitted that he shot Michael Boyd “three or four times” at point blank range in consummation of a plan to kill Boyd. This admission was corroborated as required with respect to the corpus delicti of murder in the first degree. Evidence apart from the confession established that Michael Boyd was indeed dead. His body was found. A doctor in the Department of Post Mortem Examiners testified that the cause of death was “the gunshot wounds.” [ ] The gunshot wounds were enough to show that the manner of death was homicide — that Boyd’s death was not by accident or suicide but was caused criminally by someone. With this corroboration the confession was enough to meet the test for the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction of murder in the first degree.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 194 Md. App. 629 - Cox v. State · Cox v. State

2. “(a) Confession not rendered inadmissible. — A confession may not be excluded from evidence solely because the defendant was not taken before a judicial officer after arrest within any time period specified by the Maryland District Rules. (b) Effect of failure to comply strictly with Maryland District Rules. — Failure to strictly comply with the provisions of the Maryland District Rules pertaining to taking a defendant before a judicial officer after arrest is only one factor, among others, to be considered by the court in deciding the voluntariness and admissibility of a confession.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Facon v. State · 144 Md. App. 1 - Facon v. State

3. “[l]ife imprisonment without the possibility of parole is needed as a sentencing option in first degree murder cases because there are people committing heinous crimes; for example, serial killers, who are not eligible for the death penalty. In addition, a death penalty proceeding is a long, expensive process and a tremendous drain on resources. Life without parole would be less costly and would have the effect of preventing the defendant from killing again.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Sucik v. State