Jones v. Basinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 8 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Statements offered to show background or the course of the investigation can easily violate a core constitutional right, are easily misused, and are usually no more than minimally relevant. Courts asked to admit such statements for supposed non-hearsay purposes must be on the alert for such misuse. A trial court should not accept without scrutiny an offering party’s representation that an out-of-court statement is being introduced for a material non-hearsay purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jerry L. Kindred v. State of Indiana

2. “an unthinking, expansive application of the course of investigation exception would effectively undermine the Confrontation Clause: Allowing agents to narrate the course of their investigations, and thus spread before juries damning information that is not subject to cross-examination, would go far toward abrogating the defendant’s rights under the sixth amendment and the hearsay rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. Griffin

3. “can be established by implication. But even assuming it can be established in this manner, we are satisfied that Czech is not entitled to relief here. This follows because, even if constitutional error was shown, the district court correctly found it to be harmless. B. Harmless Error On habeas review, a constitutional error is considered harmless unless it can be shown to have”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Czech v. Melvin