Baltierra v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a real sense, as well as the right to be physically present, one must also be mentally present to confront and be confronted by and cross-examine witnesses. . . “Physical presence and competency, essential requisites of confrontation, are personal to the accused and without affirmative action or assent by the accused those imperatives may not be disregarded or ignored by the courts. But even presence and competency do not sufffice to provide confrontation where the accused does not understand the language of the forum.” 586 S.W.2d at 556-557 . (Citations omitted).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. State · 117 Wis. 2d 359 - State v. Neave

2. “[Ejffectuating that important constitutional requirement should not be taken as implementing the constitutional right of confrontation. While there is a suggestion ... that a lawyer speaking the same language can interpret testimony for an accused, we believe that added task, with its obvious distracting implications, should not be imposed on counsel. The lawyer discharges his obligation by providing effective assistance guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of Texas. Counsel is not obliged to implement the right of confrontation. That duty is imposed upon the court by the confrontation clause in the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 10.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Adams v. State · Linton v. State

3. “[W]e hold that when it is made known to the trial court that an accused does not speak and understand the English language an interpreter must be furnished to translate to the accused the trial proceedings, including particularly testimony of the witnesses presented by the State. In the absence of the opportunity to be aware of the proceedings and the testimony of the witnesses against her, appellant was denied the constitutional right of confrontation and, that right not being knowingly and intelligently waived, her trial and conviction are null and void.”

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