Laske v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2004
13 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 Glasser v. United States · United States v. Nixon · United States v. James · United States v. Petersen · United States v. Andrews
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The judge alone, pursuant to Rule 104(a), Fed Rules of Evidence, [ 12 O.S. 1981 , § 2105(A)] makes the determination as to the admissibility of hearsay co-conspirator statements. 2. The court makes a threshold determination based upon substantial independent evidence. 3. It is preferable whenever possible to require the government to first introduce independent proof of the conspiracy and subsequent thereto, to establish the connection of the defendant with the conspiracy before admitting hearsay declarations of co-conspirators. 4. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the district court must determine as a factual matter whether the prosecution has shown by a preponderance of the evidence independent of the statement itself (1) that a conspiracy existed; (2) that the co-conspirator and the defendant against whom the co-conspirator’s statement is offered were members of the conspiracy; and (3) that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harjo v. State“In conclusion, the Laske Court stated: We are of the opinion that the procedure outlined in United States v. Stipe, supra, not only, requires the judge to make a preliminary determination, but also that it be based on competent evidence. Further, the government must present its case in the “preferred order of proof;” independent evidence first, then hearsay. Allowing the hearsay in, to later be “connected up” as was done in the present case, was strongly criticized in United States v. Stipe_”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harjo 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.