State v. Lunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he hearsay rule often has a very different impact on civil actions than in criminal cases when the statement is offered against an accused. ... An additional constitutional dimension is also present because the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment provides “that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Martinez · State v. Taylor

2. “We hold the admission of the statements attributed to the boys was error because defendant was denied his constitutional right of confrontation, here, the right to cross-examine. . . Our holding is limited to the circumstances of this case. . . . We announce no rule of general application when an established exception to the hearsay rule is opposed to the constitutional right of confrontation. Where these concepts are opposed, their opposition must be resolved on a case by case basis. [ 82 N.M. at 530 , 484 P.2d at 372 .]”

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

3. “that the observation of demeanor on the witness stand is a result of cross-examination but is not a part of the confrontation right. Where prior testimony has been properly admitted, the fact finder does not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of that witness. Thus, it may be doubted that .. . demeanor is an aspect of the constitutional right of confrontation.”

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