Bartruff v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2012
13 state decisions
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 Ohio v. Roberts · Barber v. Page · Berger v. California · Thomas v. State · Wallace v. State
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In several cases the United States Supreme Court has discussed the test for determining the unavailability of a witness. It stated a witness is not unavailable unless prosecutorial authorities make a good-faith effort to secure his presence at trial. Ohio v. Roberts (1980), 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2543 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 ; Berger v. California (1969), 393 U.S. 314, 315 , 89 S.Ct. 540, 541 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 ; Barber v. Page (1968), 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318, 1322 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 . (Emphasis supplied). If no possibility of procuring the witness’s attendance exists, “good faith” demands nothing of the prosecution; however, if there is even a remote possibility affirmative measures will be successful, good faith may demand their effectuation. Ohio, supra. The extent to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness is a question of reasonableness. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“we believe the minimum required to show a good faith effort in this regard is evidence the prosecution filed a petition for the issuance of a subpoena under [the Act] and continuing reasonable attempts to procure the witness's attendance at trial before his deposition is admissible, even though the witness was subject to cross-examination when the deposition was taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.