Crivello v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Kephart suggested that Rule 901 was consistent with the pre-rules authentication requirements. We hold that suggestion to be in error. While the Edwards test and other pre-rules caselaw may often yield the same results and may sometimes employ similar reasoning to that required under Rule 901, that is not invariably the case. And, we find that attempting to cling to the Edwards test after the enactment of Rule 901 will result in unwarranted confusion for practitioners, trial courts, and appellate courts. Rule 901 is straightforward, containing clear language and understandable illustrations. Kephart is overruled.”

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

2. “(1) Testimony of Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be; (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances; and (5) Voice Identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.”

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