Bowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The [S]ixth [A]mendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 2, 10 of the Arkansas Constitution guarantee the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The right of confrontation provides two types of protection for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him and the opportunity to conduct effective cross-examination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · Suggs v. State

2. “The sixth amendment to the United States. Constitution and Art. 2, § 10 of the Arkansas Constitution guarantee the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The right of confrontation provides two types of protection for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him and the opportunity to conduct effective cross-examination. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 , 106 S.Ct. 292 , 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985); Winfrey v. State, 293 Ark. 342 , 738 S.W.2d 391 (1987). See also Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 409 , 601 S.W.2d 845 (1980). In fact, “[t]he main and essential purpose of confrontation'is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Winfrey v. State, supra. However, the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses is not unlimited. United States v. Cameron, 814 F.2d 403 (7th Cir.1987). Trial judges have-wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned “to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among .other, things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of issues, the witnessfs] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra. The Confrontation Clausé “guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, hot cross-examina”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Ark. App. 35 - Chantharath v. State