People v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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.

1. “The Supreme Court has developed a two-part test ‘for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause ’ (People v. James, 93 N.Y.2d 620, 641 [ 695 N.Y.S.2d 715 , 717 N.E.2d 1052 (1999)], quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 [ 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)]; see Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 [1980]). First, the prosecution must demonstrate that the declarant is unavailable to testify. Second, the statement must bear adequate indicia of reliability (see Idaho v. Wright, supra at 815 [ 110 S.Ct. 3139 ]; People v. James, supra at 641, 695 N.Y.S.2d 715 , 717 N.E.2d 1052 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 549 F. Supp. 2d 226 - Rodriguez v. Superintendent, Collins Correctional Facility