Brown v. Keane’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 82 · 2004
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably United States v. Kaplan (2007), Mungo v. Duncan (2004)
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · Maryland v. Craig
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a present sense impression is a statement “describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” Rule 803(1), Fed.R.Evid. Such statements are considered to be trustworthy because the contemporaneity of the event and its description limits the possibility for intentional deception or failure of memory. ‡ ‡ # H* # [t]he hearsay exception for excited utterances is premised on a similar, though distinct, assumption that the reliability of a statement increases as opportunity for reflection by the declarant decreases. An “excited utterance” is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Rule 803(2), Fed.R.Evid.....“[t]he rationale for this hearsay exception is that the excitement of the event limits the declarant’s capacity to fabricate a statement and thereby offers some guarantee of its reliability.” Unlike present sense impressions “an excited utterance need not be contemporaneous with the star tling event to be admissible.” Rather the length of time between the event and utterance is only one factor to be taken into account in determining whether the declarant was, within the meaning of rule 803(2), “under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” % % ;j: s¡< Thus while the hearsay exception for present sense impressions ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In making a determination of harmless error, the court looks to the record as a whole, considering the overall strength of the prosecution's case, the importance of the improperly admitted evidence, and whether the evidence was emphasized at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rosa v. McCray“The present sense impression exception applies only to reports of what the declarant has actually observed through the senses, not to what the declarant merely conjectures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.