Peters v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “DOES THE "TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY" RULE SET FORTH IN CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 [, 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 ] (2004) APPLY IN COMMUNITY CONTROL AND/OR PROBATION REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS?”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hawthorne v. State · Russell v. State

2. “Finally, a decision by this court declaring Crawford applicable in community supervision revocation proceedings would result in prejudice to the State far outweighing any perceived confrontation violations suffered by an accused probation or community control violator. This is true because in the .overwhelming majority of such cases the nature of the illegal substance is not at issue. Under the present system affidavits are accepted without objection. Were we to accept appellant’s position, defense attorneys would object to the admission of written lab reports in revocation proceedings, even when there was no dispute concerning the nature of the substance, if the analyst who prepared the report was not present to testify as to the findings set forth in the report. As a result, the State would be put to great expense even though in most cases the defendant would suffer no prejudice from the admission of the written report. In those cases where there is a true dispute concerning the nature of the substance, and the defense can show some lack of trustworthiness in the lab report, the report will be inadmissible. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat.”

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

3. “evidence which may not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial would be admissible in probation or parole revocation proceedings.”

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