Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 WASH2D 97 - State v. Beadle

State v. Beadle’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Davis v. Washington · Barber v. Page · Michigan v. Bryant

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

  1. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““[T]he lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce the witness is ‘a question of reasonableness.’ ” [State v.] Smith, 148 Wn.2d [122,] 133[, 59 P.3d 74 (2002)] (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting [Ohio v.] Roberts, 448 U.S. [56,] 74[, 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 ]). In particular, the “good faith” standard does not require the State to undertake a “futile act” to satisfy the confrontation clause. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d at 172 (citing Roberts, 448 U.S. at 74 ). However, if the State makes no effort whatsoever to produce the witness, the State cannot rely on the mere possibility that the witness would resist such efforts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “whether a reasonable person in the declarant's position would anticipate his or her statement being used against the accused in investigating and prosecuting the alleged crime. The inquiry focuses on the declarant's intent by evaluating the specific circumstances in which the out-of-court statement was made.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.