Brady 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. “Testimony of Children in Criminal Proceedings. (a) In a criminal proceeding under AS 11.-41 involving the prosecution of an offense committed against a child under the age of 13, or witnessed by a child under the age of 13, the court (1) may appoint a guardian ad litem for the child; (2) on its own motion or on the motion of the party presenting the witness or the guardian ad litem of the child: may order that the testimony of the child be taken by closed circuit television or through one-way mirrors if the court determines that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate. (b) In making a determination under (a)(2) of this section, the court shall consider factors it considers relevant, including (1) the child's chronological age; (2) the child’s level of development; (3) the child’s general physical health; (4) any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by the child; and (5) the mental or emotional strain that will be caused by requiring the child to testify under normal courtroom procedures. (c) If the court determines under (a)(2) of this section that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate, the court may order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom to be viewed by ”

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

2. “The hearsay rule has many exceptions, the most basic of which is that a prior extrajudicial statement is admissible as substantive evidence when the declarant is a witness who testifies and is available for cross-examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Allen v. State

3. “It is not required that the declarant testify prior to admission of his hearsay statement provided he is made available for cross-examination at some point during trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Allen v. State