49 So. 3d 5 - State v. Beauchamp’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. “A. The party seeking to introduce a certificate made in accordance with R.S. 15:499 shall, not less than ten days prior to the commencement of the trial, give written notice of intent to offer proof by certificate. Such notice shall include a copy of the certificate. (B) (1) The party against whom such certificate is offered shall be permitted to subpoena on cross-examination, the person who performed the examination or analysis of the evidence. If the subpoena is requested at least five days prior to the commencement of trial or the person subpoenaed responds to the subpoena, the certificate shall not be prima facie proof of its contents or of proper custody. (2) When the attorney for the defendant, or the defendant acting in his own defense, requests that a subpoena issue to the person who performed the examination or analysis, the request shall be in writing and shall contain a certification that the attorney or the defendant intends in good faith to conduct the cross-examination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Welch · 67 So. 3d 525 - State v. Simmons

2. “notice-and-demand statutes simply govern the time within which he must do so.” Beauchamp, p. 4, 49 So.3d at 8 , citing Melendez-Diaz , 557 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 2541 . In addressing the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 So. 3d 1033 - State v. McElveen

3. “did not violate Melendez-Diaz ...” as the scheme”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 73 So. 3d 1033 - State v. McElveen