State v. Bonello’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably Maryland v. Craig (1990), State v. Spigarolo (1989)
3 federal appellate · 65 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Chambers v. Mississippi · California v. Green · Douglas v. Alabama · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably(fn31) true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Testimony of Children in Criminal Proceedings. (a) In a criminal proceeding under AS 11.-41 involving the prosecution of an offense committed against a child under the age of 13, or witnessed by a child under the age of 13, the court (1) may appoint a guardian ad litem for the child; (2) on its own motion or on the motion of the party presenting the witness or the guardian ad litem of the child: may order that the testimony of the child be taken by closed circuit television or through one-way mirrors if the court determines that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate. (b) In making a determination under (a)(2) of this section, the court shall consider factors it considers relevant, including (1) the child's chronological age; (2) the child’s level of development; (3) the child’s general physical health; (4) any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by the child; and (5) the mental or emotional strain that will be caused by requiring the child to testify under normal courtroom procedures. (c) If the court determines under (a)(2) of this section that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate, the court may order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom to be viewed by ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blume v. State“confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maryland v. Craig
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.