State v. Seever’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"1. [T]he visual and aural recording of a verbal ... statement of a child when under the age of twelve who is alleged to be a victim of an offense under the provisions of chapter 565, 566 or 568, RSMo, is admissible into evidence if: "(1) No attorney for either party was present when the statement was made; "(2) The recording is both visual and aural and is recorded on ... videotape ...; "(3) The recording equipment was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator ... was competent, and the recording is accurate and has not been altered; "(4) The statement was not ... in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement ...; "(5) Every voice on the recording is identified; "(6) [The interviewer] is present at the proceeding and available to testify or be cross-examined by either party; and "(7) The defendant or the attorney for the defendant is afforded an opportunity to view the recording before it is offered into evidence.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mann · State v. Wright

2. “[A] videotaped statement was admitted in evidence and played to the jury. The video was a statement by an eight-year-old child alleged to have been subjected to sexual contact. After the videotaped statement was played to the jury, the child testified. The court found that “[t]he statement and the testimony covered the same precise ground.” Seever held this was “improper enhancement and rehabilitation.” Seever concluded that “[t]his bolstering [was] a departure from the normal course of trial proceedings.” The court concluded it could not say there was no prejudice. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.”

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

3. “The state did not fully avail itself of the privilege, accorded it by the statute, of introducing the videotape and then leaving it to the defendant to call the victim for cross-examination. It first introduced the videotape, and then called her to the stand where she gave testimony covering all the elements of the case. The defendant argues that this procedure resulted in an improper enhancement and rehabilitation. We agree.”

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