Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Hearsay evidence admitted under the Confrontation Clause must be so trustworthy that cross-examination of the declarant would be of marginal utility. 2. Such trustworthiness can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 3. Because it is not a firmly rooted exception to the rule against hearsay, a declaration against penal interest is “presumptively unreliable” and must therefore be excluded unless the court is persuaded that the declaration has “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” 4. In shouldering its burden of persuasion on that issue, the State must confine its proof to the circumstances that surround the statement. 5. Other evidence that corroborates the declarant’s version of the relevant event cannot be considered by the court when determining whether the circumstances render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.”

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

2. ““(W]hen an appellant, in a criminal case, establishes error, unless a reviewing court, upon its own independent review of the record, is able to declare a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict, such error cannot be deemed ‘harmless’ and a reversal is mandat ed. Such reviewing court must thus be satisfied that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of—whether erroneously admitted or excluded—may have contributed to the rendition of the guilty verdict.” (Footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hutchins v. State

3. “... we are by no means content that the State overcame the jealously guarded presumption that the [co-defendant’s confession] was untrustworthy. We believe that those circumstances did not show sufficiently that there were present the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness required to make the statement admissible ... We hold that the trial court erred in admitting it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Matusky v. State