United States v. Clifford E. Payne, United States of America v. Roland Payne, United States of America v. Hubert Payne’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 449 · 1974
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Bell v. City of Milwaukee (1984), United States v. Morlang (1975)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Justice Harlan viewed the Confrontation Clause, not as an absolute guarantee of the right to cross-examine, but rather as an “availability rule, one that requires the production of a witness when he is available to testify.” 399 U.S. at 182 , 90 S.Ct. at 1947 . He wrote: “[T]he Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment reaches no further than to require the prosecution to produce any available witness whose declarations it seeks to use in a criminal trial,” 399 U.S. at 174 , 90 S.Ct. at 1943 ; and continuing: The fact that the witness, though physically available, cannot recall either the underlying events that are the subject of an extra-judicial statement or previous testimony or recollect the circumstances under which the statement was given, does not have Sixth Amendment consequence. The prosecution has no less fulfilled its obligation simply because a witness has a lapse of memory. The witness is, in my view, available. To the extent that the witness is, in a practical sense, unavailable for cross-examination on the relevant facts, ... I think confrontation is nonetheless satisfied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[U]nder the special facts of this case, the reliability of the record of [the witness’] past recollection was sufficiently established that admission of the record [the unsigned statement] into evidence was not barred by mechanical application of the rule against hearsay testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. State““. . . the Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting a declarant’s out-of-court statements, as long as the declarant is testifying as a witness and subject to full and effective cross-examination.” (P. 158)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.