212 So. 3d 1220 - State v. Luckey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Louisiana Supreme Court has considered several factors, derived from United States v. Starks , 515 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1975), when determining whether a party has established a foundation for the admissibility of an audio recording. See State v. Hennigan , 404 So.2d 222 , 236 n.7 (La. 1981). Although the Supreme Court has never held that the establishment of each of these facts is necessary for the admission of audio recordings, we consider the following factors helpful in reviewing whether the State properly laid a foundation for the admissibility of the redacted audio recording of Dr. Jackson's interview with E.D.: (1) That the recording device was capable of taking the conversation now offered in evidence. (2) That the operator of the device was competent to operate the device. (3) That the recording is authentic and correct. (4) That changes, additions or deletions have not been made in the recording. (5) That the recording had been preserved in a manner that is shown to the court. (6) That the speakers are identified. (7) That the conversation elicited was made voluntarily and in good faith, without any kind of inducement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 252 So. 3d 950 - S.L.B. v. C.E.B.

2. “during E.D.'s interview, she and E.D. were the only individuals in the room”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 252 So. 3d 950 - S.L.B. v. C.E.B.

3. “accurately reflected the conversation she had with E.D.,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 252 So. 3d 950 - S.L.B. v. C.E.B.