State v. Gersin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Cjross examination of a child witness could be ineffectual if the child sincerely takes his or her recollections to be grounded in facts and does not remember the improper interview procedures which may have suggested them.” State v. Kirschb-aum, [535 N.W.2d] at 467. Similarly, cross-examination of the interviewer is not necessarily sufficient. Child sexual abuse eases are a special lot. A major distinguishing aspect of a child sexual abuse case is how the victim came to relate the facts which led to the bringing of criminal charges. A defendant not only should be able to cross-examine prosecution witnesses regarding how they obtained their information, but also should have the chance to present expert testimony as to how such information is ideally obtained. Prosecutors are free to cross-examine, or to question the idea that there is only one blanket method of interviewing that should be applied to every child. State v. Gersin, [ 76 Ohio St.3d 491 , 668 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ohio 1996) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Speers

2. “[h]ow that information was obtained and the accepted protocols on how to obtain such information certainly are relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ogle, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2007)

3. “`expert testimony on the ultimate issue of whether sexual abuse has occurred in a particular case'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. White, Unpublished Decision (11-4-2004)