Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 878 A2D 1255 - In Re Ty. B.

In Re Ty. B.’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

27 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States · Chapman v. United States · Brown v. AVEMCO Investment Corp. · United States v. Corey

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

  1. “cannot say, with fair assurance, . . . that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[t]he law is clear that the [government] and the trial court, not the ... appellant, had the legal responsibility to clarify the basis for admitting testimony, over objection, that otherwise was inadmissible hearsay.” Patton v. United States, 633 A.2d 800, 809 (D.C.1993) (per curiam). Moreover, on proper objection it is clearly the burden of the party seeking its admission, to identify the appropriate exception and to demonstrate that the testimony fell within it. And it is the trial court’s responsibility to examine the testimony and determine whether the proper foundation has been laid for the exercise of discretion as to its admission. Id. at 810 (emphasis in Patton) (quoting In re M.L.H., 399 A.2d 556 , 558 (D.C. 1979)). In this case as in M.L.H., “the [government] never identified a hearsay exception for the trial court to review.” 399 A.2d at 558.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We are satisfied that this evidence was sufficient to permit a guilty verdict. We do not, however, find the evidence so strong as to justify a conclusion that the erroneously admitted hearsay testimony was harmless in its impact on the jury deliberations. Whether, absent this item of evidence, a jury would nonetheless convict appellant is a speculation which we are neither prepared nor willing to undertake.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.