Durbin v. Hardin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In support of Giun, the commentators likewise conclude that testimony regarding an interpreter’s translation which is made to a third person is inadmissible hearsay: If a declarant makes a statement in a foreign tongue and A translates the statement to B who does not understand the language in which it was originally spoken, the original declaration may be admissible if proper proof of it is made, as an admission of a party. Is B’s evidence as to A’s report to him of the declaration admissible? It is clear that it is violative of the hearsay rule and inadmissible. It is necessary to produce the interpreter himself as a witness and have him testify to the terms of the declaration. 1A R. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence Civil and Criminal § 789 (Texas Practice 3d ed.1980) [at 19] (footnote omitted) [emphasis supplied by court of appeals]. 11”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saavedra v. State