Blume v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he constitution forbids denying the accused face-to-face confrontation with an accuser in a criminal trial absent specific evidence and an express finding that the probable effect of the defendant’s presence on the witness would significantly impair the substance of the witness’s testimony. A mere finding of some general, or de minimfijs effect will not suffice. Likewise, generalized, subjective impressions or assumptions will not substitute for case-specific evidence. (Footnote omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reutter v. State · Brandon v. State

2. “If the court does not find under (a)(2) of this section that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures will result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate, the court may, after taking into consideration the factors specified in (b) of this section, supervise the spatial arrangements of the courtroom and the location, movement, and deportment of all persons in attendance so as to safeguard the child from emotional harm or stress. In addition to other procedures it finds appropriate, the court may (1) allow the child to testify while sitting on the floor or on an appropriately sized chair; (2) schedule the procedure in a room that provides adequate privacy, freedom from distractions, informality, and comfort appropriate to the child’s developmental age; and (3) order a recess when the energy, comfort, or attention span of the child warrants.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brandon v. State

3. “is vested with broad discretion on the issue of competency, and its decision to allow a witness to testify is subject to reversal only for abuse of discretion.”

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