State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2011
2 federal appellate · 16 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 Faretta v. California · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Chambers v. Mississippi · Illinois v. Allen
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Testimony of Children in Criminal Proceedings. (a) In a criminal proceeding under AS 11.-41 involving the prosecution of an offense committed against a child under the age of 13, or witnessed by a child under the age of 13, the court (1) may appoint a guardian ad litem for the child; (2) on its own motion or on the motion of the party presenting the witness or the guardian ad litem of the child: may order that the testimony of the child be taken by closed circuit television or through one-way mirrors if the court determines that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate. (b) In making a determination under (a)(2) of this section, the court shall consider factors it considers relevant, including (1) the child's chronological age; (2) the child’s level of development; (3) the child’s general physical health; (4) any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by the child; and (5) the mental or emotional strain that will be caused by requiring the child to testify under normal courtroom procedures. (c) If the court determines under (a)(2) of this section that the testimony by the child victim or witness under normal court procedures would result in the child’s inability to effectively communicate, the court may order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed circuit equipment in the courtroom to be viewed by ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Blume v. State
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.