Burkholder v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The commentary accompanying this section gives examples of situations where hearsay evidence before the grand jury may be appropriate: “As a general principle, the use of secondary evidence before a grand jury should be avoided unless there are cogent reasons justifying the presentation of a matter on the basis of such evidence. . . . The need to use a summary of available evidence may arise in cases involving voluminous records or where an absent witness has given a written statement but is not available at the time and circumstances justify prompt grand jury action. Similarly, where the victim of a criminal act is seriously injured and therefore is unavailable, someone to whom the relevant facts have been related should be permitted to relate to the grand jury what has been told. A third illustrative situation exists where the safety of an important witness reasonably warrants that his identity remain covert and his statements have been recorded and can be presented to the grand jury in sufficient detail to warrant an indictment.” Id. at 89.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gieffels · Taggard v. State

2. “is adequate to persuade reasonable minded persons that if unexplained or uncon-tradicted it would warrant a conviction of the person charged with an offense by the judge or jury trying the offense, (footnote omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. George · Taggard v. State

3. “Under the Parks standard the hearsay testimony presented to the grand jury in the present case is insufficient to support an indictment. At best, only a modicum of credibility can be attributed to the informant-declarant in this case. The name of the informant was not disclosed, the nature and extent of his relationship with the police and the appellant were not revealed, and the circumstances relating to the purchase of hashish from appellant were not explored. Briefly stated, the hearsay testimony presented lacked the probative value required by Parks . In such circumstances the hearsay testimony presented cannot ‘ra tionally establish facts’ sufficient to support an indictment as required by Parks.”

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