Wildermuth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 79 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Ojrdinarily the judge should observe and question the child. Additionally, testimony about the likely impact on the particular child must be specific and must show much more than mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify____ While the testimony need not be given in the precise words of the statute, it must be clear that the statutory requirements are met in sub-stance____ Testimony about the likely impact on the child testifying must be definite, related to the statutory standard, and specific to the potential child witness him or herself.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Vincent · Bowser v. State

2. “[t]he Confrontation Clause operates in two separate ways to restrict the range of admissible hearsay..... [W]hen a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate “indicia of reliability.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Garlick · State v. Jones

3. “(a)(1) In a case of abuse of a child as defined in § 5-701 of the Family Law Article or Article 27, § 35A of the Code, a court may order that the testimony of a child victim be taken outside the courtroom and shown in the courtroom by means of a closed circuit television if:”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 76 Md. App. 250 - Craig v. State · Maryland v. Craig