111 Wash. 2d 66 - State v. Leavitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The factors for assessing reliability of child hearsay statements include “ ‘(1) whether there is an apparent motive to lie; (2) the general character of the de-clarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; and (5) the timing of the declaration and the relationship between the declar-ant and the witness.’ Also to be considered are [these additional] factors ...: (1) whether the statement contained assertions about past fact — if not, it carries on its face a warning to the jury not to give the statement undue weight; (2) whether cross-examination could establish that the declarant was not in a position of personal knowledge to make the statement; (3) how likely it is that the statement was founded on faulty recollection; and (4) are the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement such that there is no reason to suppose that the declarant misrepresented the defendant’s involvement, for example, was the statement spontaneous or against the declarant’s penal interest?”

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

2. “As to the Dutton factors, the child's statements were an assertion of past fact, and conceivably the defense could have revealed an inadequate knowledge basis through more extensive cross examination. However, child hearsay statements about sexual abuse will usually contain statements about past fact, and where defense does not inquire into details on cross examination it could usually be said that cross examination could have revealed an inadequate knowledge basis. These factors do not weigh in favor of reliability, but under these facts we conclude that they do not weigh in favor of unreliability, either.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Wash. App. 638 - State v. Stange

3. “counsel was not merely employing trial strategy by failing to timely object to the failure to hold [a reliability] hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 Wash. App. 902 - State v. Dawkins