548 So. 2d 643 - Rouse v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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. “"[W]e conclude that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Dr. Lauridson was constitutionally unavailable for purposes of appellant's trial. The witness was only temporarily absent from the state, and no real effort was made by the state to locate the witness and get him back for the trial. . . . In our opinion, the prosecution did not make a good faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness. 'The constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination cannot be sidestepped because it happens to be convenient for one of the parties.' Holman v. Washington , 364 F.2d 618 , 628 (5th Cir. 1966). Mere absence does not establish unavailability. Williams v. Calloway , 281 Ala. 249 , 201 So.2d 506 (1967) . . ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lámar v. State · Barnes v. State

2. ““The testimony of a witness, in a former trial or action, given (1) under oath, (2) before a tribunal or officer having by law the authority to take testimony and legally requiring an opportunity for cross examination, (3) under circumstances affording the party against whom the witness was offered an opportunity to test his credibility by cross-examination and (4) given in a litigation in which the issues and parties were substantially the same as in the present cause, is receivable as evidence in the present trial (5) when the personal attendance of the witness to testify in the present trial is not feasible.” (Footnotes omitted.)”

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

3. “"`[W]hen a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate "indicia of reliability." Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'"”

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