State v. Wilcoxon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the scope of the confrontation right encompasses only testimonial statements. Its protections 13 The decision we cite was that of a plurality of the court. However, the concurring justice agreed with the plurality as to the issues relevant to our decision. See State v. Wilcoxon, 373 P.3d 224, 231 (Wash. 2016) (Gonzalez, J., concurring) ("I agree with the lead opinion that Bruton and the confrontation clause did not apply to the out-of-court statements at issue before us. A threshold question in determining when the confrontation clause applies is whether the out-of-court statement was procured by the government. We should treat statements that were not procured by the government as presumptively nontestimonial. Thus, their admissibility should be governed by the rules of evidence, not the confrontation clause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Raymond L. Nieves

2. “which, as a matter of law, they should not consider but which they cannot put out of their minds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Raymond L. Nieves

3. “applies to 'witnesses' against the accused——in other words, those who 'bear testimony.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Raymond L. Nieves