Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 Md. 448 - Chapman v. State

Chapman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Ross (1994), 156 Md. App. 139 - Snowden v. State (2004)

2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

2201993200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3505

Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · California v. Green · Bourjaily v. United States · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[WJhere hearsay statements are admitted under an exception which is not considered “firmly rooted,” then they are “presumptively unreliable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes” and must be excluded, at least absent a “ ‘showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “Admission [of a hearsay statement] under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Roberts cannot fairly be read to stand for the radical proposition that no out-of-court statement can be introduced by the government without a showing that the declarant is unavailable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.