709 So. 2d 1364 - Harrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To qualify as an exception, the procedure must (1) 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Marcinick, 89736 (7-17-2008) · State v. Oliver

2. “(1) insures that the witness will give his statements under oath—thus impressing him with the seriousness of the matter and guarding against the lie by the possibility of a penalty for perjury; (2) forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth"; (3) permits the jury that is to decide the defendant's fate to observe the demeanor of the witness in making his statement, thus aiding the jury in assessing his credibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zuraff v. Reiger · 748 So. 2d 950 - Conner v. State

3. “[T]he [foreign] witnesses were absolutely essential to this case .... [T]here is an important state interest in resolving criminal matters in a manner which is both expeditious and just. In order to do that in this case, the testimony of these two witnesses was a necessity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harrell v. Butterworth · United States v. Yates