40 Wash. App. 729 - State v. Bernson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992), State v. Rohrich (2003)
26 state decisions
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
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Marion · United States v. MacDonald · 94 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Green · United States v. Testan
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In almost any instance, a defendant can complain that the admission of potentially incriminating evidence is prejudicial in that it may contribute to proving beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the crime with which he is charged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'must specifically demonstrate the delay caused actual prejudice to his defense.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The admissibility of hearsay against a defendant in a criminal case is subject to overriding constitutional considerations. "The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to confront witnesses against him." State v. Parris, 98 Wn.2d 140, 144 , 654 P.2d 77 (1982). When hearsay is admitted, this constitutional guaranty requires a determination of "(1) reliability of the testimony sought to be admitted, and (2) availability of the source (the out-of-court declarant) to appear, swear, and be cross-examined". State v. Smith, [ 85 Wn.2d 840, 849 , 540 P.2d 424 (1975)]. Ms. Remington's death satisfies the requirement of unavailability. The concern is, therefore, with the reliability of the statements. "Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." State v. Parris, supra at 145 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980)). Here, the statements clearly fell within the ambit of ER 803(a)(3), a hearsay exception which is well recognized in Washington. See State v. Smith, supra at 854 , and citations. We find no error in the admission of this evidence.”
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.