State v. Ambriz-Arguello’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“exception. However, instead of resolving the notice issue, the trial court concluded that the interpreter's out-of-court translations of defendant's statements did not make the interpreter an additional declarant and, therefore, defendant's statements were not hearsay because defendant was a party opponent. The trial court admitted the audio-video recording and transcript of defendant's interview with the detective, and the jury found defendant guilty of multiple crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“we consider any differences between the quality of the erroneously admitted evidence and other evidence admitted on the same issue to assess whether the jury would have found the evidence to be duplicative, cumulative, or unhelpful in its deliberations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the trial court erred in admitting the audio-video recording and transcript containing the interpreter's English translations of defendant's statements * * * because those translations amounted to inadmissible hearsay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.