156 Md. App. 139 - Snowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “made under cireumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Lagunas v. State · People v. Vigil

2. “(i) the child victim's personal knowledge of the event; (ii) the certainty that the statement was made; (iii) any apparent motive to fabricate or exhibit partiality by the child victim, including interest, bias, corruption, or coercion; (iv) whether the statement was spontaneous or directly responsive to questions; (v) the timing of the statement; (vi) whether the child victim’s young age makes it unlikely that the child victim fabricated the statement that represents a graphic, detailed account beyond the child victim's expected knowledge and experience; (vii) the appropriateness of the terminology of the statement to the child victim's age; (viii) the nature and duration of the abuse and neglect; (ix) the inner consistency and coherence of the statement; (x) whether the child victim was suffering pain or distress when making the statement; (xi) whether extrinsic evidence exists to show the defendant or child respondent had an opportunity to commit the act complained of in the child victim's slatement; (xii) whelher the statement was suggested by the use of leading questions; and (xiii) the credibility of the person testifying about the statement. Md.Code (2001), § 1 l-304(e)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Article.”

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

3. “[a]t a minimum ... prior testimony at a prehminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogation. Various formulations of this core class of “testimonial” statements exist: “ex parte- in-court testimony or its functional equivalent — that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially,”; “extrajudicial statements ... contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions,”; “statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Md. App. 34 - Rollins v. State