State v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 6 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[bjecause a codefendant's confession is presumed unreliable, the statement must either meet a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or provide some indicia of reliability, such as interlocking with the defendant's own confession ... As [we previously] recognized ... [w]hen a codefendant’s confession is virtually identical [i.e., interlocks] to that of a defendant, it may be deemed reliable. Hence an interlocking confession will serve the same purpose as the nine-factor test in assessing reliability.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Francois · Crawford v. Washington

2. “[B]oth of the Crawfords' statements indicate that Lee was possibly grabbing for a weapon, but they are equally unsure when this event may have taken place. They are also equally unsure how Michael received the cut on his hand, leading the court to question when, if ever, Lee possessed a weapon. In this respect they overlap. . . . 29”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Crawford v. Washington

3. “[Petitioner's] version asserts that Lee may have had something in his hand when he stabbed him; but Sylvia's version has Lee grabbing for something only after he has been stabbed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crawford v. Washington