165 Conn. App. 563 - State v. Polanco’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 461 - State v. Esquilin · 168 Conn. App. 519 - State v. Cunningham

2. “Probation revocation proceedings fall within the protections guaranteed by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution.... The revocation proceeding must comport with the basic requirements of due process because termination of that privilege results in a loss of liberty.... [T]he minimum due process requirements for revocation of [probation] include written notice of the claimed [probation] violation, disclosure to the [probationer] of the evidence against him, the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in most instances, a neutral hearing body, and a written statement as to the evidence for and reasons for [probation] violation.... Despite that panoply of requirements, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 461 - State v. Esquilin · 179 Conn. App. 270 - State v. Tucker

3. “In considering whether the court had good cause for not allowing confrontation or that the interest of justice [did] not require the witness to [appear] ... the court should balance, on the one hand, the defendant's interest in confronting the declarant, against, on the other hand, the government's reasons for not producing the witness and the reliability of the proffered hearsay.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 270 - State v. Tucker · 190 Conn. App. 639 - State v. Crespo