244 Mich. App. 361 - People v. Knapp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree if the person engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists: ... (b) That other person is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and any of the following: ... (iii) The actor is in a position of authority over the victim and the actor used this authority to coerce the victim to submit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 279 Mich. App. 116 - People v. Brown · 296 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Knapp v. White

2. “We find no evidence in the record showing that the prosecutor injected the issue of defendant’s homosexuality into the trial. Rather, defendant elicited testimony from his own marriage counselor regarding his sexual orientation. Further, ... defendant raised the issue of his extramarital relationship with Kol-berg to pursue his theory that Kolberg conspired with complainant’s mother to fabricate the charges in this case. Therefore, any details the prosecutor elicited about defendant’s relationship with Kolberg were relevant to rebut defendant’s theory at trial. It is disingenuous for defendant to now claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by exploring an issue raised by defendant. With regard to other questions about defendant’s conduct, defendant did not object when the prosecutor asked defendant about his behavior during therapy sessions with Kolberg’s husband, Don McAvinchey. Defendant testified that he did not incorporate the touching of genitals into his therapy practice and, in an effort to rebut that testimony, the prosecutor simply asked defendant about a statement McAvinchey wrote regarding certain incidents that occurred during his therapy sessions with defendant. Defendant responded by stating that any reference McAvinchey made to nudity, sexual contact, oral sex, and masturbation during his therapy sessions was a lie. The prosecutor elicited this testimony to rebut defendant’s contention that complainant fabricated his story about all contact of a sexual ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Knapp v. White

3. “Defendant also argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to references to pedophilia and for not filing a motion in limine to preclude evidence of defendant’s homosexuality and references to other possible victims. Defense counsel elicited testimony from both defendant and his own therapist that defendant was not classified as a pedophile. The questions were part of defense counsel’s attempt to separate defendant from pedophiles in order to argue that he was not a repeat offender. Moreover, defendant himself raised the issue of homosexuality in order to convince the jury that he did not possess homosexual tendencies. Defendant raised this issue as part of his trial strategy, to counter allegations that he touched complainant for his own sexual gratification. Further, in order to bolster his theory that Kolberg and complainant’s mother fabricated the allegations in this case, defense counsel himself elicited testimony that no other victims ever came forward with claims against defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Knapp v. White