Coleman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Keller pointed out that although Givens was in jail pending trial on Ireland’s murder, Oswald (Pru) Trayham, the organization’s other enforcer, was still on the street. Also police investigation indicated that Coleman was “sending emissaries from the Baltimore City Jail to issue harm to any of [the State’s] witnesses.” Questioned as to the basis of the witnesses’ fear that they would be killed, Keller said: Because of the prior activities of this drug organization. People that have been shot and people that have been shot and killed. There are also people that have just been shot and have not died because they have crossed this particular drug organization and their death was ordered. He explained: Now, in some particular instances the murder wasn’t complete. The person didn’t die because the hospital saved them. They believe that if their identity is made known to this drug organization they are not safe wherever they may be, whether it be under our protection. The court remarked that this would be true even after they testified and the case was over. Keller responded: Yes, it would be true. That’s true. Correct. To be quite candid, Your Honor they are hoping that once the case is over the persons being tried will be incarcerated and then we would provide [the witnesses] with a means of leaving this area. The judge inquired if the police would provide the witnesses with new identities. The officer replied the police did not have that capability, but, combined with the State’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 1 - Lancaster v. State

2. “The area around the 800 block of Broadway is “a notorious place where drug deals are made.” ... John (Skeeter) Holt apparently considered the area to be the exclusive territory of a drug organization he headed. The organization maintained “stash houses” in the area. Its cocaine was stored in these houses. The narcotics were packaged in clear vials.... distinguished by a pink cap.... Only the organization’s cocaine was packaged with pink caps, and all the cocaine sold in the area by the organization had pink caps on the vials. This enabled the organization to control competition by assuring that only its drugs were being sold in the area. Givens was a member of the organization. He played a dual role. He was a runner, one who sells drugs to users, and he was an enforcer, one who inflicts punishment on those who act contrary to the interests of the organization. He and Oswald (Pru) Trayham were responsible for “enforcing” in the organization. [The victim] McNeil became the subject of Givens’ enforcement duties. The organization was aware that McNeil “would sit for hours many times and watch” where the organization put [its] stashes and then he would go steal the stash of drugs and sell it for his own profit, which angered the drug dealers. The organization’s cocaine was “pure,” but McNeil would “cut” it before selling it. Thus, McNeil’s activities not only diminished the organization’s income, they also damaged the organization’s reputation for the quality of its merchandise. C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 1 - Lancaster v. State

3. “The police did ... receive information from the witnesses who were the subject of the protective order, one of whom was an eyewitness to the shooting. It was specific information, and ... a positive identification of Gregory Givens was made as the shooter of Delroy McNeil. Also, there was information given relative to a conversation ... between Anthony Coleman and Gregory Givens just prior to the shooting of Delroy McNeil and also there was information as to actions of both individuals, what they did right before the shooting. The witnesses agreed to testify in court, but not without reservations. Keller said: ... The biggest concern they had when I interviewed them was their personal safety. They are in extreme fear. They feel that if their identity is revealed that they would have to have 24 hour guard around the clock, but they feel like their life would not be worth a nickel. That’s their words, extremely difficult to get people to come forward like this in these particular type cases and to give this kind of information and even more difficult, when you do get the information, for people to want to remain anonymous and not testify in court. The officer observed that it is [v]ery unusual for a person to put themselves this up front, so to speak, and be willing to go before the Baltimore City Grand Jury and come into a courtroom in front of whoever chooses to come in here and testify against an individual like this, an individual who is already indicted on two murders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 1 - Lancaster v. State