Jones v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, however, the victim was available at trial for cross-examination by defense counsel. In California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149 , 164 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 1938 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), moreover, the Supreme Court held that 'the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making the statements, and who may be asked to defend or otherwise explain the inconsistency between the prior and his present version of the events in question, thus opening himself to full cross-examination at trial as to both stories. ' (Emphasis supplied). The Court held, in short, that the right to cross-examine a witness 'at the trial concerning his current and prior testimony satisfie[s] the commands of the Confrontation Clause.' Green , 399 U.S. at 153 , 90 S.Ct. at 1932 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 582 So. 2d 581 - Fortner v. State