Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 408 Md. 631 - Decker v. State

Decker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably State v. Simms (2011), Cost v. State (2010)

36 state decisions

300200920102020decided

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 Lovett v. United States · Laverick v. United States · United States v. Myers · Caribbean Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Fuels of Puerto Rico, Inc. · Merzbacher v. State

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

  1. “A person’s post-crime behavior often is considered relevant to the question of guilt because the particular behavior provides clues to the person’s state of mind. The reason why a person’s post-crime state of mind may be relevant is because, as Professor Wigmore suggested, the commission of a crime can be expected to leave some mental traces on the criminal.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) from the defendant's conduct, a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence; (2) from a desire to evade prosecution or conceal evidence, consciousness of guilt; (3) from consciousness of guilt, consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses; and (4) from consciousness of guilt with respect to the charged offenses, actual guilt.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    2 later decisions 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.