Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 Md. 342 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Simms (2011), Thompson v. State (2006)

47 state decisions

240200220102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun v. United States · Schmerber v. State of California · St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Camp · Laverick 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A person's post-crime behavior `is considered relevant to the question of guilt' because `the commission of a crime can be expected to leave some mental traces on the criminal.'”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight * * * [is] admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “For the evidence to have value as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and then as evidence of guilt of the murder, there must be evidence to support an inference from petitioner’s conduct to a consciousness of guilt for the particular crime charged. The jury should not have been permitted to draw an inference of guilt from petitioner’s conduct unless the conduct was related to the murder investigation. Because there is no evidence connecting petitioner’s refusal to allow the officers to draw his blood and a consciousness of guilt of the murder ..., the evidence of defendant’s conduct lacks probative value and was inadmissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.