Fowler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness. (1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bush v. State · Nathan S. Berkman v. State of Indiana

2. “Crawford specifically recognized “forfeiture by wrongdoing” as an exception to the requirement of confrontation as a prerequisite to the admission of testimonial hearsay statements. 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 . This doctrine holds that a party who has rendered a witness unavailable for cross-examination through a criminal act, e.g., homicide, may not object to the introduction of hearsay statements by the witness on Confrontation Clause grounds. See United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921, 926 (8th Cir.1999). Indiana courts have never addressed the applicability of forfeiture by wrongdoing to a Confrontation Clause violation. The doctrine has a lengthy history and is recognized by the federal courts and courts of several sister states. See, e.g., United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1359 (8th Cir.1976); People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1 (Colo.Ct.App., 2004); State v. Meeks, 277 Kan. 609 , 88 P.3d 789, 794 (2004); State v. Gettings, 244 Kan. 236 , 769 P.2d 25, 28-29 (1989); Holtzman v. Hellenbrand, 92 A.D.2d 405 , 460 N.Y.S.2d 591, 595-96 (N.Y.App.Div.1983). More than a hundred years ago, the United States Supreme Court explained the rule as follows: “The Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; but if a witness is absent by his own [the accused’s] wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away. The Constit”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Boyd v. State · Roberts v. State

3. “The precise issue in this case is whether a witness who is present and takes the stand, but then refuses to testify with no valid claim of privilege, is a witness who “appears for cross-examination” (as that term is used in Crawford) if no effort is made to compel the witness to respond.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Howard v. State · 188 Conn. App. 481 - State v. Hutton