528 F. Supp. 27 - Olson v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Since clear and convincing evidence demonstrates Dale Olson’s involvement in a conspiracy to murder the Davises, the public interest requires that the acts of co-conspirator James Black which prevented Jean Link from testifying about the murders, and which apparently were undertaken by Mr. Black on behalf of both Mr. Olson and himself, result in a waiver of Mr. Olson’s right to confront Ms. Link. The State’s legitimate interests in preventing Dale Olson from benefitting from Mr. Black’s actions and in deterring similar actions by co-conspira tors in the future “warrant dispensing with” Mr. Olson’s confrontation right. See Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 100 S.Ct., at 2538 . Accordingly, for this additional reason there was no constitutional error in the admission into evidence of Ms. Link’s statements to police. [528 F.Supp. at 32 (footnotes omitted).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Olson v. Green