State v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2012
11 state decisions
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 Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The hearsay rules and the confrontation clause ... are designed to protect similar values. California v. Greene, 399 U.S. 149, 155 (1970). However, the congruence is not exact, and a statement which might be admissible under the rules [of evidence] must still be subject to a more rigorous constitutional scrutiny. This is especially true of the rules’ use of the term “unavailable,” for the interpretation of that term determines when the proponent of a witness is excused from having to ensure that the witness is present at trial, which goes to the heart of the confrontation clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roberts“rules governing unavailability... are not strictly applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Lynds“a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lynds
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.