State v. Cornell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] `declarant' is a person who makes a statement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nielsen · State v. Hancock

2. “"The confrontation clause of the sixth amendment provides `that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' Taken literally, this clause could mean that no evidence falling within a hearsay exception may be admitted against an accused unless the declarant is available to testify, or that no extra-judicial statements may be admitted unless an opportunity for cross-examination has been afforded. At no time, however, has either personal presence of the witness or cross-examination been insisted upon as indispensable. At its narrowest, the provision could also mean only that the defendant has a constitutional right to cross-examine those witnesses who actually testify against him at trial, so that the confrontation clause and the hearsay rule are simultaneously satisfied when evidence is admitted pursuant to a hearsay exception, although the declarant does not testify. This theory, however, has been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court, which has on several occasions rejected the notion that the hearsay rule and the right to confrontation are fully congruent, although the Court acknowledged that both protect similar values. "What then does the confrontation clause mean? As recently as 1986, the Supreme Court `disclaimed any intention of proposing a general answer to the many difficult questions arising out of the relationship between the Confrontation Clause and hearsay.' Taken together, however, the l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nielsen

3. “"[W]hen a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that [the declarant] is unavailable. Even then, [the declarant's] statement is admissible only if it bears adequate `indicia of reliability.' Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.[ [17] ] In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nielsen