34 So. 3d 724 - Styron v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Crawford v. Washington, [ 541 U.S. 36 (2004) ], the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of a wife’s out-of-court statements to police officers, regarding an incident in which the defendant, her husband, allegedly stabbed the victim, violated the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court stated that, regardless of whether an out-of-court statement is deemed reliable by the trial court, an out-of-court statement by a witness that is testimonial is barred under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . Although the Supreme Court held that Crawford applied to testimonial statements, it declined to provide a comprehensive definition of testimonial statements, stating merely that ‘[wjhatever else the term covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations.’ 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . “In Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), the United States Supreme Court expounded on what types of statements were testimonial statements: “ ‘Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are te”

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