Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Robertson v. State (1991), Jackson v. State (1994)
27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Wainwright v. State · Hughes v. State · Weber v. State · Skinner v. State · Keys v. State
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In a criminal prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is present and subject to cross-examination may be used as affirmative evidence with substantive independent testimonial value. (b) The rule in subsection (a) of this section shall apply regardless of whether the witness' in-court testimony is consistent with the prior statement or not. The rule shall likewise apply with or without a showing of surprise by the introducing party. (c)This section shall not be construed to affect the rules concerning the admission of statements of defendants or of those who are codefendants in the same trial. This section shall also not apply to the statements of those whom to cross-examine would be to subject to possible self-incrimination.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Feleke v. State · Adkins v. State“[A] witness' statement may be introduced [under 11 Del. C. § 3507] only if the two-part foundation is first established: the witness testifies about both the events and whether or not they are true.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Adkins v. State · Purnell v. State“But the use of hearsay statements under section 3507 must be carefully circumscribed in order to avoid, as occurred here, the only direct evidence concerning the commission of the offense against a child being presented through the testimony of third parties relating what the victim stated on a prior occasion. The statute becomes meaningless if there is no opportunity to test the truth of the statements offered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Demby v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.