Haakanson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2019
1 federal appellate · 23 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 Rock v. Arkansas · Frye v. United States · 101 Wash. 2d 566 - State v. Petrich · Love v. State · Marks v. State
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have never authorized expert testimony seeking to establish that a person is a member of a particular class or group, i.e., battered women or sexually abused children, by showing that they exhibit behavioral characteristics common to that group. We agree ... that before such testimony is admitted, the proponent should establish, in a hearing out of the presence of the jury, that the probative value of the testimony outweighs its prejudicial effect. The [Alaska] [S]upreme [Cjourt has suggested that in cases such as this, compliance with [Alaska Rule of Evidence] 403 should be virtually the equivalent of compliance with the Frye rule [Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) ].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. State · Plate v. State“Rodriquez and Anderson , read together, permit expert testimony that responds to a defense claim that a complaining witness’ conduct is inconsistent with being sexually abused by showing that similar conduct is exhibited by those who are sexually abused. These decisions do not permit testimony offered to prove that the complaining witness is sexually abused by showing that the complaining witness exhibits behavior similar to that exhibited by sexually abused children.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. State · Hilburn v. State“[child batterer] profile evidence is highly prejudicial because it invites a jury to conclude that because an expert experienced in child abuse cases identifies an accused as someone fitting a particular profile, it is more likely than not that this individual committed the crime.”
1 later decision 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.