State v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 120 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Reynolds v. States · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · United States v. Thevis
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`if a witness is absent by his own [the accused's] wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"If the trial court determines as a threshold matter that the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her, then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right, even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lewis · State v. Jensen“"`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 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Drach v. Bruce · State v. Lackey
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.