Barnes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The standard of review when there is conflicting evidence at a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence of a confession is whether the trial court's decision was "manifestly contrary to the great weight of the evidence." Ex parte Matthews , 601 So.2d 52 , 54-55 (Ala.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1206 , 112 S.Ct. 2996 , 120 L.Ed.2d 872 (1992). We will not disturb the trial court's decision on the voluntariness of a confession unless it is clearly erroneous. Ex parte Youngblood , 656 So.2d 390 , 392 (Ala. 1995).'"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marlowe v. State · 849 So. 2d 223 - Baird v. State

2. “"`"In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Supreme Court `announced that confrontation clause analysis should proceed case-by-case under a two-track approach that tests the necessity and reliability of the contested testimony.' United States v. Perez, 658 F.2d 654 at 660 (9th Cir.1981) (citing Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65-66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2538-39 ). The first consideration is the `rule of necessity' established by the sixth amendment. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2538 . `In the usual case ... the prosecution must either produce, or demonstrate the unavailability of, the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant.' Id. This necessity requirement is not `absolute.' Perez, 658 F.2d at 661 . The government is not required to produce a seemingly available witness when the `utility of trial confrontation [is] remote.' Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. at 2538 n. 7. Furthermore, `[t]estimony that is neither "crucial" to the prosecution nor "devastating" to the defendant might not be subject to the necessity requirement.' Perez, 658 F.2d at 661 (citing Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 at 87, 89 , 91 S.Ct. 210 at 219, 220 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970)). If the government establishes the unavailability of the witness, Roberts then requires that the declarant's statement bear adequate `indicia of reliability.' Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 ."' " 580 So.2d at 55 -56 (quoting United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 887 So. 2d 929 - McNabb v. State · 993 So. 2d 907 - Sharifi v. State