State v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We need not go beyond the reasoning in Crawford to decide this case. Shaydon's statements to Snyder fell within the core class of testimonial evidence that Crawford identified. There can be little doubt that, if the police officers had conducted these interviews with Shaydon, the resulting statements would be testimonial. Indeed, Crawford described an officer's interview of the four-year-old victim in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 349-51 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), as eliciting testimonial evidence. 124 S.Ct. at 1368 n. 8. The only difference between this case and White is that a DHS worker, rather than an officer, conducted the interviews. The DHS worker, however, was serving as a proxy for the police. She took over the first interview when the interviewing officer was unable to establish a dialogue with Shaydon. She continued in that role in the second interview and elicited statements from Shaydon so that police officers could videotape them for use in a criminal proceeding. Under Crawford , admitting Shaydon's statements to Snyder would violate the Confrontation Clause."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Contreras · State v. Hopkins

2. “[t]he primary focus in Crawford was on the method by which government officials elicited out-of-court statements for use in criminal trials, not on the declarant's intent or purpose in making the statement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP · 218 Or. App. 131 - State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP

3. “[t]he involvement of government officers in the production of testimonial evidence presents the same risk, whether the officers are police or”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Contreras · State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. SP