State v. Jensen’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably State v. Jorgensen (2008), State v. Thompson (2012)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 57 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 Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Malloy v. Hogan · Illinois v. Allen · Bourjaily v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) "[E]x parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent— that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially." (2) ”[E]xtrajudicial statements ... contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions." (3) "[Sltatements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] crucial aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, pursuant to Crawford, is that it 'only covers hearsay, i.e., out-of-court "'We 3 generally apply United States Supreme Court precedents when interpreting' the Sixth Amendment and the analogous Article 1, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e adopt a broad forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, and conclude that if the State can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused caused the absence of the witness, the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine will apply to the confrontation rights of the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.