State v. Cochran’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2025
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Hoyos · State v. Ardolino · State v. Smith · 282 Ill. App. 3d 692 - People v. Swaggirt · United States v. Seabolt
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. the time of the declaration and the party to whom it was made; 2. the existence of corroborating evidence in the case; 3. whether the declaration is inherently inconsistent with the accused’s guilt; and 4. whether at the time of the incriminating statement the declarant had any probable motive to falsify.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. the declarant must be unavailable as a witness; 2. the statement must so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal liability that a reasonable person in the declar-ant’s position would not have made the statement unless the declarant believed it to be true; and 3. the statement must be corroborated by circumstances that “clearly” indicate its trustworthiness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Small
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.