State v. Warwick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The criteria for the foundation for admission of tapes or records are specific. Where a transcription is introduced along with the record, and a proper foundation has been laid for the record it will be admissible, for the transcription can be compared with the record or tape. There are some cases where only the transcription of the recording has been offered and though objected to on the basis that the transcription is not the best evidence, courts have admitted the transcription where a proper foundation was laid for the admission. Applebaum v. Applebaum, 84 N.Y.S.2d 505 (Sup.1948); McGuire v. State, 200 Md. 601 , 92 A.2d 582 (1952). “However, in State v. Baca, 82 N.M. 144 , 477 P.2d 320 , a police officer’s notes that had been transcribed from a tape recorded interview between the defendant and the informer were held inadmissible due to failure to lay a proper foundation for both the recording itself and the subsequent transcription. That is precisely the factual situation here, except under our factual situation the tape is missing or destroyed. This loss or destruction of the tape or record has, in the few cases we have found from other jurisdictions, raised the best evidence rule objection, and where admission has been allowed it has only been after the prosecution has proven the authenticity of the transcription — that is, after laying the proper foundation as to the accuracy of the secondary evidence following the guide lines set forth in 58 A.L.R.2d 1024 , heretofor”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hampshire v. State · State v. Brodniak

2. ““(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of authenticity and correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of preservation of the recording, (6) identification of the speakers, (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brodniak

3. ““(1) a showing that the recording devicce was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of authenticity and correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording, (6) identification of the speakers * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Smith