Roussonicolos v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 992 So. 2d 96 - Hudson v. State · 619 So. 2d 261 - Thompson v. State · Finlason v. Finlason
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moreover, the failure to allow the jury to hear this testimony deprived the jury of important additional evidence that could have been critical to assessing Garcia’s guilt. Indeed, where Garcia’s alleged involvement in the crimes hangs on the testimony of one individual .,. the jury was entitled to consider the testimony of the [co-defendant], who took the stand in his own trial and specifically testified that Garcia was not involved in these murders. In this case, to prevent the jury from hearing the prior recorded testimony of the [co-defendant], which the State subjected to cross-examination, is to apply the hearsay rule “mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.” For all these reasons, the exclusion of [co-defendant’s] prior sworn testimony constituted error, which ... was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We do not read Section 90.804(2)(a) to require that, in order for prior testimony to be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, the opponent of the evidence must have the same motivation to examine the witness in both the prior proceeding and the one in which the prior testimony was being introduced. Nor, as the State suggests, must the scope of inquiry conducted at the bond hearing be the same as the seope of the examination at trial. Garcia, 816 So.2d 554 . To require such a high standard would render this hearsay exception useless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Former testimony. — Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compli- • anee with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.