Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “How given. The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding. The court may give its instructions orally or, with the consent of the parties, in writing instead of orally. The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State · Grimes v. State

2. “(1) "that the behavior of the defendant suggests flight"; (2) "that the flight suggests a consciousness of guilt"; (3) "that the consciousness of guilt is related to the crime charged or a closely related crime"; and (4) "that the consciousness of guilt of the crime charged suggests actual guilt of the crime charged or a closely related crime."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 484 - Hallowell v. State · Jones v. State

3. “The gravamen of the issue is whether [the defendant] fled in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the crimes for which he was on trial. In the present case, the jury was not presented with evidence of what may have been an alternative and at least a cogent motive for [the defendant]'s flight, specifically that drugs were found on his person. During his interview with police, [the defendant] asserted that he ran from them because he had drugs in his possession, which, according to the State, amounted to eighty-six vials of crack cocaine at the time of his arrest. He was in essence arrested in flagrante delicto with respect to the crime of possession of controlled dangerous substances. We find that this fact, which was known to all parties involved although not revealed to the jury, undermines the confidence by which the inference could be drawn that [the defendant]'s flight was motivated by a consciousness of guilt with respect to the crimes for which he was on trial in the present case; it provides a foundation for the alternate, and equally reasonable, inference that [the defendant] fled due to the cocaine in his possession, an action a person in his position may have taken irrespective of whether he also shot and attempted to rob [one of the victims]. [The defendant] thus was placed in a difficult situation where he must either not object to the highly prejudicial evidence concerning his possession of a significant amount of cocaine being introduced to the jury to explain h”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State · Ford v. State