Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 WASHAPP 193 - State v. Cross

State v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 1985
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bruton v. United States · United States v. Matlock · Brown v. Texas · 95 Wash. 2d 898 - State v. Seagull · 73 Wash. 2d 271 - State v. Davis

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

  1. “The rule was adopted to avoid the constitutional problem encountered in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 (1968), where the Supreme Court held that a defendant is deprived of his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment if he is incriminated by the pretrial confession of a codefendant who does not take the stand at trial. State v. Wheeler, 95 Wn.2d 799 , 631 P.2d 376 (1981); State v. Herd, 14 Wn. App. 959 , 546 P.2d 1222 (1976).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) A defendant's motion for severance on the ground that an out-of-court statement of a codefendant referring to him is inadmissible against him shall be granted unless: . . . (ii) Deletion of all references to the moving defendant will eliminate any prejudice to him from the admission of the statement.”
    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.