State v. Gilliam’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably State v. Madrigal (2000), State v. Tucker (1998)
6 federal appellate · 48 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · White v. Illinois · Lee v. Illinois · State v. Landrum
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Confrontation Clause is a constitutional safeguard that ensures a defendant will not be convicted based on the charges of unseen, unknown, and unchallengeable witnesses. Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 , 540, 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986). Thus, the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under a hearsay exception. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 814, 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). When a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause requires a showing that he is unavailable and that the statement bears adequate “indicia of reliability.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). The reliability standard can be satisfied without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Id. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . Otherwise, to satisfy the Confrontation Clause the evidence must be supported by a showing of “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the declarant believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”
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.