Bruce v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State · 117 Md. App. 253 - Robinson v. State

2. ““After the defense rested its case, the prosecutor asked to call a rebuttal witness, Kenneth Clee. Over objection, Clee was permitted to testify that in March or April of 1988, he had a conversation with Appellant in New York, and during that conversation Appellant admitted that ‘he had killed a couple of people in Maryland, and that he was wanted by the f.b.i: Appellant claims that the trial judge erred in admitting Clee’s testimony as rebuttal evidence. Appellant’s admissions to Clee that he was fleeing from, the F.B.I. and had killed a couple of people in Maryland could have been introduced as substantive evidence in the State’s case in chief. They constitute admissions of flight and admissions of criminal agency. Instead of offering these statements as part of its case, the State waited, and when Appellant took the witness stand and denied participation in any killings and testified that the trip to Florida was pre-planned, the State attempted to impeach this testimony through the prior inconsistent statements made to Clee. When Appellant denied making the statements to Clee, the State quite properly, in rebuttal, offered the prior inconsistent statement through Clee. We note that Appellant’s statement when offered in rebuttal was not admissible at that stage as an admission, but was admissible at that stage as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach Appellant’s testimony. Appellant could have requested a limiting instruction that the prior inconsistent statement was ad”

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

3. “A sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole means that Mr. Bowie will not be eligible to get parole for the balance of his natural life. Parole—in a moment I’ll explain to you exactly what parole is. A sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, what I have earlier referred to as life, means that the Defendant, Mr. Bowie, will not be eligible to get parole until he has served at least 25 years in prison, less any credit for institutional good time that he may receive. At this point in time I believe, and I will stand corrected— this is relative—I think the maximum that one can earn in . 25 years right now is something like a 4-year period. That would be the maximum. But the point is that under our law, life under the circumstances of this case means imprisonment without eligibility to make parole for a period of 25 years, less whatever the good time one can earn over that period. The Governor of the State of Maryland has the power to commute or change any sentence of death to a sentence of imprisonment for any period of time that he shall deem appropriate. Further, the Governor may pardon any per son convicted of a crime, including persons sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, on such conditions as he, the Governor, may prescribe or he may remit or reduce any part of the sentence of imprisonment without such remission operating as a full pardon____ Let me, first of all, tell you what parole means. Interestingly enough, parole heark”

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