121 Cal. App. 4th 1409 - People v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... Johnson misapprehends Crawford's discussion of what amounts to `testimonial' hearsay. A laboratory report does not `bear testimony,' or function as the equivalent of in-court testimony. If the preparer had appeared to testify at Johnson's hearing, he or she would merely have authenticated the document. In [ People v. Arreola [(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]], our Supreme Court explained: `There is an evident distinction between a transcript of former live testimony and the type of traditional”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 Cal. 4th 555 - People v. Geier · 151 Cal. App. 4th 1193 - People v. Shepherd

2. ““There is an evident distinction between a transcript of former live testimony and the type of traditional ‘documentary’ evidence ... that does not have, as its source, live testimony. [T]he need for confrontation is particularly important where the evidence is testimonial, because of the opportunity for observation of the witness’s demeanor. Generally, the witness’s demeanor is not a significant factor in evaluating foundational testimony relating to the admission of evidence such as laboratory reports, invoices, or receipts, where often the purpose of this testimony simply is to authenticate the documentary material.... ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2006) · 47 Va. App. 461 - Michels v. Commonwealth

3. “Probation revocation proceedings are not `criminal prosecutions' to which the Sixth Amendment applies. (Citations.) Probationers' limited right to confront witnesses at revocation hearings stems from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not from the Sixth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 Cal. App. 4th 1193 - People v. Shepherd