State v. Staten’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
30
cited by 30 later decisions
8
states following
August 2010
most recently cited
30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · White v. Illinois
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Justice Scalia’s opinion [in Crawford] hints, but does not decide, that the Confrontation Clause no longer applies to non-testimonial hearsay, and that its admission is governed by a jurisdiction's hearsay rules” and Roberts’ "indicia of reliability” approach. David F. Binder, Hearsay Handbook § 7:2 (4th ed. 2004). Most jurisdictions are leaning toward the idea that "Crawford [left] the Roberts approach untouched with respect to nontestimonial statements.” United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2004); see also Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir.2004) ("Thus, unless [witness’s hearsay] statements qualify as 'testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts continues to apply.”) [, cert. denied,-U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 971 , 160 L.Ed.2d 905 (2005)]; State v. Manuel, 275 Wis.2d 146 , 2004 WI App 111 , 685 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Wis.Ct.App.2004), review granted, 2004 WI 138 , 276 Wis.2d 26 , 689 N.W.2d 55 (Wis.2004) ("We proceed, in an abundance of caution, to analyze Manuel’s confrontation clause claim under the Roberts analysis").”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.