Angleton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Authentication and identification,” according to the drafters of the federal rules, “represent a special aspect of relevancy.” They explain: “Thus a telephone conversation may be irrelevant because on an unrelated topic or because the speaker is not identified....” As the example shows, the problem of authentication of identification is not confined to documentary or real evidence. It arises whenever the relevancy of any evidence depends upon its identity, source, or connection with a particular person, place, thing or event. “The foundation on which the necessity of authentication rests,” wrote Wigmore, “is not any artificial principle of evidence, but an inherent logical necessity.” ... When real evidence is offered, often its condition as well as its identity is important. When this is so, a proper foundation must include evidence that the item is in substantially the same condition when presented as at the legally material time, e.g., the time of the accident, the time of first discovery, etc_ It is not required, however, that all possibility of tampering or adulteration be eliminated. Moreover, even if a change in the condition of an item has occurred, it is not necessarily thereby rendered inadmissible. So long as the probative value of the item, despite the change, outweighs the danger of misleading the jury, it will still be admissible, and the change in its condition will be a matter going only to its weight as evidence.”

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

2. “The State was required to furnish testimony of a witness who could verify the tape was what the State claimed it to be. In the absence of such evidence, we find the State failed to lay the proper predicate for the'court to admit the tape into evidence.”

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

3. “(a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Angleton v. State