State v. Hallman’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2005
14 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 36 Cal. 3d 236 - People v. Bledsoe · State v. Sahlie · 168 Cal. App. 3d 1093 - People v. Roscoe · State v. Logue · State v. McCafferty
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the request must be in good faith; (2) it must be reasonable in all respects; (3) it must be timely and specifically set forth the necessity of the expert; and (4) it must specify that the defendant is financially unable to obtain the required service himself and that such services would otherwise be justifiably obtained were the defendant financially able.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“What I am driving at is this: Incest victims or rape trauma victims cannot be singled out, specifically, in a given factual scenario, by professional experts as having had a crime perpetrated upon them. The dynamics involved in a like crime may be testified to by experts but for certain limited purposes. Such a purpose would be to support that a class of victims typically make poor witnesses and are reluctant to disclose sordid episodes. Another example would be to permit a professional expert to reveal to the jury that professional research reveals’certain findings on the subject of a victim’s reaction to sexual assault, given to rehabilitate the complaining witness, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Bachman“is not sufficient to warrant the appointment of an expert for the defense. The defense must establish an articulable basis for believing that the state's expert will present evidence which could reasonably be contradicted by other experts in the field.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re EL and RL
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.