State v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The Confrontation Clause operates in two ways when determining the admissibility of hearsay statements. First, the Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity. In the usual case, the prosecution must either produce or demonstrate the unavailability of the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant. Second, once a witness is shown to be unavailable, the witness' statement is admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability. Reliability can be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. If the evidence does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the evidence must be excluded absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.' (Emphasis added.)" 263 Kan. at 692-93 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Meeks · Drach v. Bruce

2. “"Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: . . . . "(d) Contemporaneous statements and statements admissible on ground of necessity generally. A statement which the judge finds was made . . . (3) if the declarant is unavailable as a witness, by the declarant at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by the declarant and while the declarant's recollection was clear and was made in good faith prior to the commencement of the action and with no incentive to falsify or to distort."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Davis · State v. Garcia

3. “"The hearsay exception at issue in the present case would seem to lie somewhere between the hearsay exceptions carved out for child victims [which are not firmly rooted hearsay exceptions] and the preliminary hearing testimony in Roberts . It is richer in indicia of reliability than a small child's statement on a grown-up subject, but it lacks some indicia of reliability that one would associate with cross-examined testimony. It is included as part of the Kansas Rules of Evidence, which indicates the legislature's longstanding recognition of its trustworthiness. We question whether K.S.A. 60-460(d)(3) meets the above criterion of a `firmly rooted' hearsay exception for confrontation purposes." Bailey, 263 Kan. at 695 , 952 P.2d 1289 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Davis