State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably State v. Logan (2006), 148 Md. App. 601 - Wilson v. State (2002)
82 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Witt · Bryant v. State · Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop · Morford v. United States
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Laws regulating and prohibiting the use of controlled dangerous substances harbor an unusual position within our criminal code, such that jurors may be biased because of strong emotions relating to the dangers of narcotics and their negative effects upon our cities and neighborhoods, or, on the contrary, biases may exist because of passionate positions that advocate the decriminalization of narcotics.””
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“Does any member of the jury panel have such strong feelings regarding violations of the narcotics laws that it would be difficult for you to fairly and impartially weigh the facts at a trial where narcotics violations have been alleged?”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Voir dire, the process by which prospective jurors are examined to determine whether cause for disqualification exists, see Boyd v. State, 341 Md. 431, 435 , 671 A.2d 33, 35 (1996), is the mechanism whereby the right to a fair and impartial jury, guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, ... see Grogg v. State, 231 Md. 530, 532 , 191 A.2d 435, 436 (1963), is given substance. See Hill v. State, 339 Md. 275, 280 , 661 A.2d 1164, 1166 (1995); Bedford v. State, 317 Md. 659, 670 , 566 A.2d 111, 116 (1989). The overarching purpose of voir dire in a criminal case is to ensure a fair and impartial jury. See Boyd, 341 Md. 431, 435 , 671 A.2d 33, 35 (1996); Hill, 339 Md. 275, 279 , 661 A.2d 1164, 1166 (1995); Davis v. State, 333 Md. 27, 34 , 633 A.2d 867, 871 (1993); Bedford, 317 Md. 659, 670 , 566 A.2d 111, 117 (1989); Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 217 Md. 595, 605 , 143 A.2d 627, 631 (1958); Adams v. State, 200 Md. 133, 140 , 88 A.2d 556, 559 (1952)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. State · Williams v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.