State v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Steele v. Taylor (1982), Olson v. Green (1982)
4 federal appellate · 49 state decisions
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 Bruton v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Dutton v. Evans
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The declarant must be unavailable; (2) The statement must have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the first four exceptions in Rule 804(b) [e.g. statement against interest]; (3) The statement must be offered as evidence of a material fact; (4) The statement must be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent reasonably can procure; (5)“In-troduction of the statement must serve the interests of justice and the purposes of the Mnnesota rules; (6) The proponent of the evidence to be offered must have given his adversary the notice required by the rule.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Keeton · State v. Daniels“[U]nsworn, ex parte statements made during police questioning have traditionally been considered as inherently untrustworthy. United States v. Sarmiento-Perez, 633 F.2d 1092, 1102-03 (5th Cir.1981). Indeed, the purpose of the confrontation clause is to prohibit these ex parte declarations from being introduced at trial. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 156 [ 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1934 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 ] (1970).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“requirement may be fulfilled by a showing that the declarant is unavailable. Id. A refusal to testify on the basis of Fifth Amendment privilege is sufficient to constitute unavailability for purposes of the confrontation right. Id. Thus, the first part of the analysis was satisfied in this case. Second, the reliability of such declarations must be examined. Id. We have previously stated that,”
2 later decisions 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.