Glass v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Crawford , the Court substantially altered the Confrontation Clause analysis for hearsay evidence. Cases before Crawford focused on whether the evidence at issue had adequate indicia of reliability to justify admission. The Crawford opinion held that the Confrontation Clause protects a defendant from the use of testimonial hearsay as substantive evidence against him, unless the non-testifying witness is unavailable, and the defendant has a prior, meaningful opportunity to cross-examine that witness. The Confrontation Clause analysis thus centers on whether the particular evidence at issue is “testimonial” in nature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zink v. State

2. “) testified at the evidentiary hearing he had been friends with Movant since childhood. Jackson never saw Movant have problems with other people or get into physical fights with anyone. Jackson testified Movant took in the daughter of a friend who was having issues. Bruns testified he had no contact with Jackson. The record is unclear whether Movant or anyone else informed trial counsel Jackson was a potential witness. To find trial counsel ineffective for failing to call a witness, Movant bears the burden of proving”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Lance C. Shockley v. State of Missouri

3. “In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, counsel’s conduct is measured by what the law is at the time of trial. Counsel will generally not be held ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law. [The defendant] was tried and convicted before the Crawford , ease was decided. In order to make the Crawford objection at trial, counsel would have had to anticipate the Supreme Court’s holding in an opinion that had not yet been issued.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Strong v. State