Van Arsdall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 18 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Weber this Court set forth a two-part test for determining whether limitations imposed by the trial judge on a relevant line of cross-examination violate the accused’s right of confrontation. Specifically, we said that we would look to the cross-examination permitted to ascertain (1) if the jury were exposed to facts sufficient for it to draw inferences as to the reliability of the witness and (2) if defense counsel had an adequate record from which to argue why the witness might have been biased. Clearly, the trial court’s decision to prohibit all questioning concerning the dismissal of charges against [the witness] ... prevented the jury from considering facts from which it could have drawn inferences about [the witness’] testimonial reliability. Under the circumstances, the defense had a right to introduce such testimony. 7”

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

2. “consistent with Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 [94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347] (1974) and with our ruling in Weber [ v. State, 457 A.2d 674 (1983),] for determining whether a violation of the confrontation clause is harmless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

3. “a unique outlook or `perspective on human events' not shared by other segments of the community . . . and this distinctive requirement must exist as to a substantial number of people.”

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