State v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably State v. DeJesus (2008), State v. King (1990)
33 state decisions
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 United States v. Nobles · In re Disbarment of Carnow · State v. Esposito · State v. Gonzales · State v. Bruno
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The crux of the defendant’s argument on appeal is that his right to search for truth in defending himself should supersede the interest of the rape crisis service and the victim in maintaining confidentiality. We addressed this very issue in In re Robert H., 199 Conn. 693 , 509 A.2d 475 (1986), which was published subsequent to the trial court’s ruling on the present motion to quash. In that case, we particularized a procedure, developed in our prior decisions; see State v. Bruno, 197 Conn. 326 , 497 A.2d 758 (1985); State v. Esposito, supra [ 192 Conn. 166 , 471 A.2d 949 (1984) ]; which protects a victim’s statutory right to confidentiality while simultaneously safeguarding a defendant’s constitutional right effectively to cross-ex amine the victim. In re Robert H., supra, 199 Conn, at 708-709, 509 A.2d 475 . Under that procedure, a claim of privilege may be countered by a showing that “ ‘there is reasonable ground to believe that the failure to produce the information is likely to impair the defendant’s right of confrontation such that the witness’ direct testimony should be stricken.’ ” Id., at 708, 509 A.2d 475 . If such a showing is made and the consent of the witness is secured, the court may conduct an in camera inspection of the information. This inspection, in the context of the sexual assault counselor privilege, is not limited to merely “relevant material.” The court may also look for “any inconsistent and relevant statements of the victim in the records when compa”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“some degree of mutual discovery is essential to the truth-seeking process”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. DeJesus
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.