State v. Peay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 21 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Both courts and commentators have noted that the showing of authenticity is not on a par with the more technical evidentiary rules that govern admissibility, such as hearsay exceptions, competency and privilege.... Rather, there need only be a prima facie showing of authenticity to the court.... Once a prima facie showing of authorship is made to the court, the evidence, as long [as] it is otherwise admissible, goes to the jury, which will ultimately determine its authenticity.... Of course, once this prima facie showing has been made, the opposing party may present evidence to dispute it. The test for the admission into evidence of sound recordings is the laying of a proper foundation to assure the authenticity of the recordings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Conn. App. 270 - State v. Tucker

2. “[t]he sole purpose [of a presentence investigation report] is to enable the court, within limits fixed by statute, to impose an appropriate penalty, fitting the offender as well as the crime”

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

3. “our rules of practice . . . envision that the court will rely on the [presentence investigation] report during the sentencing process.”

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