State v. March’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 42 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) ‘ex 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) ‘extrajudicial statements ... contained in affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions,’ and (3) ‘statements 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.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin · State v. O'MALEY

2. “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to the harmless error test found in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). That test requires that the error be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that there is no reasonable doubt that the error’s admission failed to contribute to the jury’s verdict.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martin · State v. Dudley

3. “[u]nder the definitions of `testimony' and `testimonial' in Crawford , as well as the `primary purpose' test in Davis, it is clear that the laboratory report in this case constituted a `core' testimonial statement subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 41 Cal. 4th 555 - People v. Geier