Ocampo v. Vail’s Empirical Analysis
649 F.3d 1098 · 2011
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Kotteakos 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To the contrary, it would be an unreasonable application of the core Confrontation Clause principle underlying Crawford to allow police officers to testify to the substance of an unavailable witness's testimonial statements as long as they do so descriptively rather than verbatim or in detail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a variety of factors, including whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of [evidence] corroborating or contradicting the testimony on material points, the extent of cross-examination, and of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“With the language actually used by the out-of-court witness obscured, any clues to its truthfulness provided by that language-contradictions, hesitations, and other clues often used to test credibility-are lost, and instead, a veneer of objectivity conveyed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.