State v. DeBarros’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Counsel often cannot know in advance what pertinent facts may be elicited on cross-examination. For that reason it is necessarily exploratory; and the rule that the examiner must indicate the purpose of his inquiry does not, in general, apply. It is the essence of a fair trial that reasonable latitude be given the cross-examiner, even though he is unable to state to the court what facts a reasonable cross-examination might develop.” State v. DeBarros, 441 A.2d 549, 551 (R.I.1982) (quoting Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Doctor · State v. Plunkett

2. ““[w]e do conclude that the jurors were entitled to have the benefit of the defense theory before them so that they could make an informed judgment as to the weight to place on [the witness’s] testimony which provided ‘a crucial link in the proof * * * of petitioner’s act.’ ” Id. 415 U.S. at 317 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 , 39 L.Ed.2d at 354 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tiernan · State v. Freeman

3. ““In respect to the limitation of the scope of cross-examination, we have recognized that the ‘Sixth Amendment right of confrontation guarantees an accused the right to an effective cross-examination in all criminal matters. It is the principal means by which the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be tested.’ State v. Anthony, R.I., 422 A.2d 921, 923-24 (1980). This principle has been firmly established in Davis v. Alaska, supra. Such a right may not be given or withheld at the discretion of the trial justice. ‘[The] discretionary authority to limit cross-examination comes into play [only] after there has been permitted as a matter of right sufficient cross-examination to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.’ Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 855 (D.C.App.1978) (quoting United States v. Bass, 490 F.2d 846 , 857-858 n. 12 (5th Cir.1974)).” R.I., 441 A.2d at 552 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Freeman · State v. Parillo