State v. Myatt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 94 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he [Kansas] legislature intended to incorporate the Roberts standard for admissibility into this statute [Kan.Stat. Ann. § 60-460(dd) ]. Through the use of the words “apparently reliable” it is implicit that the judge must find the evidence contains “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” since the new statute is not a “firmly rooted hearsay exception.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Myatt v. Hannigan · State v. Jackson

2. ““Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: “(dd) ... In a criminal proceeding . . . , a statement made by a child, to prove the crime . . ., if: “(1) The child is alleged to be a victim of the crime or offense . . .; and “(2) the trial judge finds, after a hearing on the matter, that the child is disqualified or unavailable as a witness, the statement is apparently reliable and the child was not induced to make the statement falsely by use of threats or promises. “If a statement is admitted pursuant to this subsection in a trial to a jury, the trial judge shall instruct the jury that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit to be given the statement and that, in making the determination, it shall consider the age and maturity of the child, the nature of the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, any possible threats or promises that might have been made to the child to obtain the statement and any other relevant factor.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Myatt v. Hannigan · State v. Jackson

3. ““Often the child victim’s out-of-court statements constitute the only proof of the crime of sexual abuse. Witnesses other than the victim and perpetrator are rare as people simply do not molest children in front of others. [Citation omitted.] Most often the offender is a relative or close acquaintance who has the opportunity to be alone with the child. [Citation omitted.] Depending on the type of sexual contact, corroborating physical evidence may be absent or inconclusive. [Citation omitted.] The child may be unable to testify at trial due to fading memory, retraction of earlier statements due to guilt or fear, tender age, or inability to appreciate the proceedings in which he or she is a participant. Therefore, these hearsay statements are usually necessary to the proceedings as the only probative evidence available. “It is also beginning to be recognized that a child’s statements about sexual abuse are inherently reliable. First, it is highly unlikely that a child will persist in lying to his Or her parents, or other figures of authority, about sexual abuse. Second, children do not have enough knowledge about sexual matters to lie about them. [Citation omitted.] Consequently, in light of the need for child hearsay statements in sex abuse cases, as well as their potentially superior trustworthiness to in-court testimony, the traditional reasons for barring use of such hearsay statements become less compelling. “Moreover, the incidence of sexual abuse of young children has i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of ADB · State v. Johnson