723 So. 2d 776 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 889 So. 2d 623 - Lewis v. State (2003), 887 So. 2d 929 - McNabb v. State (2003)
24 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 Chapman v. State of California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · Fahy v. Connecticut
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' "[t]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State · Ex Parte Dunaway“"`Hearsay evidence is testimony in court, or written evidence, of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court asserter.' Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 584 (1972). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the Alabama Rules of Evidence or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama or by statute. Ala.R.Evid. 802. Hearsay is not admissible because it violates the right of confrontation and cross-examination guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. To overcome the inability to confront a witness, a statement by an out-of-court declarant must bear . . . `adequate indicia of reliability.' Reliability can be inferred in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Idaho v. Wright , 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), quoting Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 65 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation *Page 361 indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term `business' as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit."”
2 later decisions 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.