State v. Hembertt’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably People v. Vigil (2006), Commonwealth v. Gonsalves (2005)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · White v. Illinois · United States v. Cromer · Horton v. Allen
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the first, testimonial statements consist of ‘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. ’. . . The second formulation described testimonial statements as consisting of ‘extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions.’ . . . Finally, the third explained that testimonial statements are those ‘made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.’.. . While the Court declined to settle on a single formulation, it noted that, ‘ [wjhatever else the term [testimonial] covers, it applies ... to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, and to police interrogations. These are the modern abuses at which the Confrontation Clause was directed. ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fischer · People v. Sharp“Police who respond to emergency calls for help and ask preliminary questions to ascertain whether the victim, other civilians, or the police themselves aré in danger are not obtaining information for the purpose of making a case against a suspect. [Statements made as a result of these questions are] not made in anticipation of eventual prosecution, but [are] made to assist in securing the scene and apprehending the suspect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lewis“[D]eterminative factor in determining whether a declarant bears testimony is the declarant's awareness or expectation that his or her statements may later be used at a trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Sharp
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.