Hammon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Davis v. Washington (2006), Michigan v. Bryant (2011)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 24 states
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 · Crawford v. Washington · Ohio v. Roberts · Estelle v. McGuire · Neder v. United States
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“statement is one given or taken in significant part for purposes of preserving it for potential future use in legal proceedings. In evaluating whether a statement is for purposes of future legal utility, the motive of the questioner, more than that of the declarant, is determinative, but if either is principally motivated by a desire to preserve the statement it is sufficient to render the statement”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Crawford [v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 LEd.2d 177 (2004) ] makes clear that in a criminal prosecution any hearsay permitted under the rules of evidence is also subject to the defendant's right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him' under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Coronado v. State · Koenig v. State“[W]e agree with the Court of Appeals in its view that responses to initial inquiries at a crime scene are typically not "testimonial." We do not agree, however, that a statement that qualifies as an "excited utterance" is necessarily nontestimonial. The Court of Appeals is likely correct that the declarant of an excited utterance will ordinarily lack the requisite motive because the heat of the moment makes it unlikely that the declarant is focusing on preservation rather than communication of information. But an interrogating officer may be so motivated. Thus, the "structured questioning” identified by some courts as an indicium of a testimonial statement may be best understood as evidence of a purpose to elicit testimonial statements.”
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.