2010 UT App 239 - State v. Hamblin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether an evidentiary ruling violated a defendant's right of confrontation is a question of law that we review for correctness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sheehan · 2019 UT App 65 - State v. Ahmed

2. “The victim's credibility was very much at issue throughout the entire trial, and the evidence of the victim's recantation and Brother's admission to abusing her with a light bulb came out in a way that was quite helpful to Hamblin. Disclosure of the recantation midtrial bolstered the defense's claim that the victim could not really remember who assaulted her and that, over time, she would come to realize that, as typified by the light bulb episode, all the assaults were perpetrated by Brother. Further, Hamblin's trial counsel was able to utilize this evidence to effectively attack the victim's credibility by questioning her regarding the discrepancies in her original and subsequent allegations. Indeed, Ham-blin was ultimately acquitted on four of the counts against him, including all object-rape counts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 UT App 144 - Hamblin v. State

3. “It does not follow, of course, that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prevents a trial judge from imposing any limits on defense counsel's inquiry into the potential bias of a prosecution witness. On the contrary, trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness'[s] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sheehan