13 Wash. App. 194 - State v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the declarant's testimony is otherwise unavailable; (2) the declaration is an admission of an unlawful act; (3) the declaration is inherently inconsistent with the guilt of the accused; and (4) there are such corroborating facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the declaration as to clearly indicate that it has a high probability of trustworthiness.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Haywood · State v. Bjelland

2. “We conclude that the exclusion of this critical evidence coupled with the State’s refusal to permit Chambers to cross-examine McDonald, denied a trial in accord with traditional and fundamental standards of due process. In reaching this judgment, we establish no new principles of constitutional law. Nor does our holding signal any diminution in the respect traditionally accorded to the States in the establishment and implementation of their own criminal trial rules and procedures. Rather, we hold quite simply that under the facts and circumstances of this case the rulings of the trial court deprived Chambers of a fair trial. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Mississippi for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. (Emphasis added) Chambers v. Mississippi, supra at 302-3, 93 S.Ct. at 1049 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stanberry v. State

3. “[equate] with the objective special circumstances found in Chambers , ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 Wash. App. 309 - State v. Russell