179 Conn. App. 734 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]n electronic document may ... be authenticated by traditional means such as direct testimony of the purported author or circumstantial evidence of distinctive characteristics in the document that identify the author.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Conn. App. 756 - State v. Papineau · 186 Conn. App. 51 - State v. Manuel T.

2. “Preliminary questions concerning ... the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court. Conn. Code Evid. § 1-3 (a). The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a). The official commentary to § 9-1 (a) of the Code of Evidence provides in relevant part: The requirement of authentication applies to all types of evidence, including ... writings ... [and] electronically stored information .... The category of evidence known as electronically stored information can take various forms. It includes, by way of example only, e-mails, Internet website postings, text messages and chat room content, computer stored records and data, and computer generated or enhanced animations and simulations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 51 - State v. Manuel T.

3. “Among the examples of methods of authenticating evidence set forth in the official commentary to § 9-1 (a) of the Code of Evidence is that [a] witness with personal knowledge may testify that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be, and [t]he distinctive characteristics of an object, writing or other communication, when considered in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, may provide sufficient circumstantial evidence of authenticity. Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a), commentary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Conn. App. 51 - State v. Manuel T.