Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 N.H. 246 - State v. Miller

State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Delaware v. Fensterer · State v. Ball · Sherwood Partners, Inc. v. Lycos, Inc.

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

  1. “probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) whether the testimony of the witness is crucial or unimportant; (2) the extent to which the evidence is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness; (3) the extent to which the evidence is also probative of other relevant matters; (4) the extent to which the act of untruthfulness is connected to the case; (5) the extent to which the circumstances surrounding the specific instances of conduct are similar to the circumstances surrounding the giving of the witness’s testimony; (6) the nearness or remoteness in time of the specific instances to trial; (7) the likelihood that the alleged specific-instances conduct in fact occurred; (8) the extent to which specific-instances evidence is cumulative or unnecessary in light of other evidence already received on credibility; and (9) whether specific-instances evidence is needed to rebut other evidence concerning credibility.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “to require a defendant to demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the prior allegations were false before being permitted to cross-examine the victim about them under [New Hampshire Rule of Evidence] 608(b).” Id. at 947 . The court concluded that state trial courts have wide discretion to allow or prohibit the cross-examination of a sexual assault victim concerning a prior allegedly false allegation of sexual abuse. Id. The”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.