876 So. 2d 932 - State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
4
states following
April 2011
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Inadi
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“.... In Crawford , the Supreme Court expressed no opinion regarding whether a harmless error analysis should be applied to such violations. Id. at n. 1. In all of the cases wherein the ruling in Crawford has been relied upon, the courts employed the harmless error analysis. Additionally, the admission of hearsay evidence is generally subject to the harmless error analysis. State v. St. Marie, 97-0168 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/18/01) , 801 So.2d 424 . Confrontation errors are subject to a Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) harmless error analysis. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. [673] at 684, 106 S.Ct. [1431] at 1438[, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)]; State v. Hawkins, 96-0766 (La.1/14/97), 688 So.2d 473, 478 ; State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321, 1332 (La.1990). The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. D”
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.