Nelson v. Farrey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general language contained in Roberts prompted many courts to conclude that a demonstration of the declarant’s unavailability was a constitutional pre-condition to the admission of most hearsay statements. [Citation.] The validity of this interpretation of Roberts, however, is suspect in view of [Inadi], *** In the course of the opinion [in Inadi], the Court employed language that could be interpreted as repudiating the unavailability discussion in Roberts. *** Given its broadest construction, Inadi stands for the proposition that the unavailability of the declarant is a relevant constitutional factor only when the hearsay statements involve testimony given at a preliminary hearing. In my view, however, Inadi does not represent a repudiation of Roberts’ unavailability discussion. Rather, I believe that Inadi merely reaffirms and applies the Roberts principle that a showing of unavailability is not required in all situations.” Nelson, 874 F.2d at 1231 (Flaum, J., concurring).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 198 Ill. App. 3d 641 - People v. White

2. “The question is whether allowing the statements into evidence created a serious danger of a miscarriage of justice. [The examining psychologist] is a qualified psychologist who ... employed his professional skills in an attempt to elicit truthful statements. No one pretends that such a sifting process is infallible, but we are given no reason to suppose that it is so unreliable that a jury should be forbidden to consider it. If such evidence were never admissible, molesters of small children, especially incestuous molesters, would rarely be punished. It would have been a monstrous cruelty to force [the child] to testify—in a public courtroom, in the presence of the father she feared—to sexual abuse by her father. Who can believe that such a confrontation would have been more likely to elicit truth than to produce sordid drama?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Diefenderfer

3. ““Six years [after Roberts was decided] the Supreme Court disavowed any suggestion that Roberts had stated a general rule, confined the case to the particular situation presented by it — a prosecutor’s attempt to use the transcript of testimony from a previous judicial proceeding in lieu of live testimony at trial— and allowed the admission of out-of-court statements by a co-conspirator who was available to testify. [Citation.] At present, then, there is no single authoritative criterion for when the admission of hearsay evidence violates a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation.” Nelson, 874 F.2d at 1227 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 198 Ill. App. 3d 641 - People v. White