State v. Hager’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bailey · Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Greene

2. “[t]here can be no rigid formulation of what showing is necessary in order for a particular item of evidence to be admissible. Rather, admissibility must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. He must be satisfied that, in all reasonable probability, the item offered is the same as the item seized and is substantially unchanged in condition. Admissibility should not depend on the prosecution negativing all possibility of tampering or substitution, but rather only that it is reasonably probable that tampering or substitution did not occur. Contrary speculation may well affect the weight of the evidence accorded it by the factfinder but does not affect its admissibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hallmark · State v. Bailey

3. “[A]ll possibility of alteration, substitution, or change of condition need not be eliminated in laying a chain of custody foundation. In the absence of any indication of substitution, alteration or other form of tampering, reasonable probative measures are sufficient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berendes v. Commissioner of Public Safety · Schram v. Commissioner of Public Safety