State v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 170 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Clark v. Arizona (2006), State v. Spigarolo (1989)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 170 state decisions — followed in 17 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Chapple · State v. Buell · Fuenning v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA · State v. Williams · State v. Williams
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he trial judge has discretion to allow... expert testimony [on the behavior patterns of child sexual abuse victims] where it may assist the jury in deciding a contested issue, including issues pertaining to accuracy or credibility of a witness' recollection or testimony.... The trial judge may exercise this discretion where there is a reasonable basis to believe that the jury will benefit from the assistance of expert testimony that explains recognized principles of social or behavioral science which the jury may apply to determine issues in the case.... We cannot assume that the average juror is familiar with the behavioral characteristics of victims of child molesting. Knowledge of such characteristics may well aid the jury in weighing the testimony of the alleged child victim. Children who have been the victims of sexual abuse or molestation may exhibit behavioral patterns ( e.g. recantation, conflicting versions of events, confusion or inarticulate descriptions) which jurors might attribute to inaccuracy or prevarication, but which may be merely the result of immaturity, psychological stress, societal pressures or similar factors as well as of their interaction. Jurors, most of whom are unfamiliar with the behavioral sciences, may well benefit from expert testimony of the general type offered in the present case....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Nor should such experts be allowed to give opinions with respect to the accuracy, reliability or truthfulness of witnesses of the type under consideration.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Broyles v. Lewis · State v. Crane“[W]e explicitly state at this time that trial courts should not admit direct expert testimony that quantifies the probabilities of the credibility of another witness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Crane · State v. Jacobson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.