166 Ind. App. 378 - Borosh v. State’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. “"It is well recognized that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation includes the right of cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 . A number of decisions have held such right to cross-examination to be infringed upon where a defendant's counsel is wholly precluded from bringing before the jury on cross-examination relevant and substantial evidence bearing upon the credibility of a crucial witness against the accused. See Davis v. Alaska, supra ; U.S. v. Duhart (6th Cir., 1975), 511 F.2d 7 ; Snyder v. Coiner (4th Cir., 1975), 510 F.2d 224 ; U.S. v. Harris (9th Cir., 1974), 501 F.2d 1 . Thus, it is clear that only a total denial of access to such an area of cross-examination presents a constitutional issue. Any lesser curtailment of cross-examination by the trial court is viewed as a regulation of the scope of such examination, and such curtailment is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. Brooks v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 678 , 291 N.E.2d 559 ." (Our emphasis)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 470 - Thomas v. State · 181 Ind. App. 370 - Duncanson v. State

2. “"Although it is normally inappropriate to utilize leading questions in the direct examination of a witness, a trial court may, in its discretion, permit the use of such questions. A trial courts determination in this regard is reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of that discretion. In the case at bar, the leading questions permitted by the trial court were carefully phrased by the prosecutor so as to put these young witnesses at ease and coherently elicit their testimony. A careful review of the record discloses no attempt by the prosecutor to control the substance of their testimony." [citation omitted]”

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

3. ““Whether a child has ever indulged in a factual fabrication under everyday circumstances is neither relevant nor revealing as to such child’s truthfulness as a sworn witness in a court proceeding. Rather, such questions may be characterized as tending to unreasonably harass, annoy or embarrass a witness, and may be properly excluded by the trial court in its discretion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Ind. App. 479 - Smith v. State