419 Pa. Super. 411 - Commonwealth v. Hanawalt’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Thomas (1998), 2003 Pa. Super. 360 - Commonwealth v. Lyons (2003)
35 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 Bruton v. United States · United States v. Leon · Ohio v. Roberts · Pointer v. Texas · Idaho v. Wright
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the statement(s); (2) the mental state of the declarant; (3) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; and (4) the lack of motive to fabricate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the evidence is relevant and that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) General rule.—An out-of-court statement made by a child victim or witness, who at the time the statement was made was 12 years of age or younger, describing physical abuse, indecent contact or ... sexual offenses performed with or on the child by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of evidence, is admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding if: (1) The court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the evidence is relevant and that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and (2) The child either: (i) testifies at the proceeding; or (ii) is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act. (a.l) Emotional distress.—Before the court makes a finding under subsection (a)(2)(ii), the court must determine, based on evidence presented to it, that testimony by the child as a witness will result in the child suffering serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate. In making this determination, the court may do all of the following: (1) Observe and question the child victim or child material witness, either inside or outside the courtroom. (2) Hear testimony of a parent or custodian or any other person, such as a person who has dealt with the child victim or child material witness in a medical or therapeutic setting. (a.2) Counsel and confrontation.—If the court hears testimony in connection with making a finding under subsection (a)(2)(ii), all of the fo”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.