Vogel v. Percy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 9 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the declarant was available for cross-examination; (2) the statement was made shortly after the events related and was transcribed promptly; (3) the declarant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to remain silent; (4) the declarant admitted making the statement; and (5) there was some corroboration of the statement's reliability.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Beauchamp · State v. Salinas

2. ““In all criminal cases, evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if (a) the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing or trial, and (b) the witness is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and (c) the statement— (1) was made under oath at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or (2) narrates, describes, or explains an event or condition of which the witness has personal knowledge, and (A) the statement is proved to have been written or signed by the witness, or (B) the -witness acknowledges under oath the making of the statement either in his testimony at the hearing or trial in which the admission into evidence is being sought, or at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or (C) the statement is proved to have been accurately recorded by a tape recorder, videotape recording, or any other similar electronic means of sound recording. Nothing in this Section shall render a prior inconsistent statement inadmissible for purposes of impeachment because such statement was not recorded or otherwise fails to meet the criteria set forth herein.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 115— 10.1.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Beauchamp · 255 Ill. App. 3d 547 - People v. Johnson

3. “Additional witnesses for the state positively identified petitioner Vogel as having purchased a pair of nylon pantyhose the evening of the robbery; as having been in the vicinity of the robbery under suspicious circumstances at the time the market alarm was sounded; and as having asked a friend to dispose of certain clothing approximately two hours after the robbery. Vogel then testified in his own behalf. He admitted the substance of the statements against him, but offered exculpatory explanations for each of his acts on the night of the robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ticey v. Peters