State v. McCafferty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 42 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Buller · State v. Logue

2. “The framers of the constitution did not intend to exclude all hearsay. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). The policy behind the confrontation clause must give way to the public's interest in effective law enforcement, the probative necessities of particular cases and other policy considerations. 448 U.S. at 64 , 100 S.Ct. at 2538 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 606 . California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), controls when the declarant is available or testifies at trial. Prejudice to the defendant by admission of a child declarant's statements is reduced when the child is available for cross-examination. 8 J.JUV.L. 67 (1984). [T]he Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making the statements, and who may be asked to defend or otherwise explain the inconsistency between his prior and his present version of the events in question, thus opening himself to full cross-examination at trial as to both stories.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Abourezk · State v. Buller

3. “‘Reflecting [the Confrontation Clause’s] underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the fact-finding process by insuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that “there is no material department from the reason of the general rule.” ... The focus of the court’s concern is then to insure that there are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declarant, ... and to afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement[.]’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Luna · St. Cloud v. Class