Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 689 So. 2d 400 - Harrell v. State

689 So. 2d 400 - Harrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2019

6 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Ohio v. Roberts · Arizona v. Fulminante · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “DOES THE ADMISSION OF TRIAL TESTIMONY THROUGH THE USE OF A LIVE SATELLITE TRANSMISSION VIOLATE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, OR ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, WHERE A WITNESS RESIDES IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND IS UNABLE TO APPEAR IN COURT?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “be justified, on a case-specific finding, based on important state interests, public policies, or necessities of the case and (2) must satisfy the other three elements of confrontation —oath, cross-examination, and observation of the witness's demeanor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the jurors were able to determine the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses testifying, even during the brief period when the transmission was not perfectly synchronized.”
    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.