Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Carroll v. State (1996), Harris v. State (1987)
36 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 Davis v. Alaska · Pointer v. Texas · United States v. Nixon · Greene v. McElroy · Alford v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essential policy underlying the sixth amendment right to confrontation is to give the accused an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him. $ * ⅜ Sfc ⅝ 9jC Thus, extreme prejudice ensues from a denial of the opportunity to place a material witness in his proper setting as regards his testimony. * * * * * * Apparent then, is the fact that when the cross-examiner is improperly denied the opportunity to ask a question and receive the witnesses’ answer for consideration by the factfinder, he may concomitantly be denied the right to establish facts which would illustrate the true circumstances bearing on the issue by extrinsic proof.” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... an effective cross-examination encompasses more than just the opportunity to elicit testimony to establish the existence of certain facts. The cross-examiner should be allowed to expose the limits of the witness’ knowledge of relevant facts, place the witness in his proper setting, and test the credibility of the witness. The failure to affirmatively establish the fact sought does not prevent the cross-examination from having probative value in regard to the witness’ credibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carroll v. State““ ‘Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of the witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’ story to test the witness’ perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker 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.