Herrera-Vega v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law — as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether. Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. We leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of "testimonial." Whatever else the term covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. These are the modern practices with closest kinship to the abuses at which the Confrontation Clause was directed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 1065 - Bartee v. State

2. “1. Ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent — that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarant would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; 2. Extrajudicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; 3. Statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 1065 - Bartee v. State

3. “The child’s statement was made to the executive director of the Children’s Assessment Center, not to a government employee, and the child’s answer to the question whether she had an “owie” was not a statement in the nature of ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Davis