585 So. 2d 137 - Hooper 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. “that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who takes the stand and is available for cross-examination may be used as substantive *Page 144 evidence if the prior statement was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 585 So. 2d 142 - Hooper v. State · 258 So. 3d 369 - Frazier v. State

2. ““A self-contradictory statement by a witness who is not a party, whether testified to by the witness during questioning or proven extrinsically by others, generally is not substantive evidence of the matter asserted. The statement customarily operates only to impeach or discredit the witness and has no other effect; in particular, such statement cannot be the basis of a finding of fact necessary to the establishment of civil or criminal liability or a defense to either. [[Image here]] “At least some inconsistent statements, however, constitute substantive evidence as to the truth of the matter asserted in them. When a witness, for example, testifies at a trial or hearing and is subjected to cross-examination then that witness’ prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if it was given under oath subject to penalty of perjury at trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. A statement qualifies under the present rule only if: (1) it is inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony; (2) the witness is subject to cross-examination; and (3) the statement was given in an appropriate proceeding. Appropriate proceedings include such proceedings as hearings before a grand jury, prior trials, and depositions. When a prior inconsistent statement is offered for substantive proof of its contents under the present principle, the offering party is due an instruction that it is usable both as going to the credibility of the witness and as substantive p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. M.L.H. v. State

3. ““(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if— “(1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte State, 1101398 (Ala. 12-2-2011)