People v. Diefenderfer’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Frank D. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. (1996), Blecha v. People (1998)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 55 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 Ohio v. Roberts · Bourjaily v. United States · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Coy v. Iowa · Alexander v. United States
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) An out-of-court statement made by a child ... describing any act of sexual contact ... performed ... on ... the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, is admissible in evidence in any criminal ... proceedings in which a child is a victim of an unlawful sexual offense, as defined in section 18-3-411(1) ... if: (a) The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability; and (b) The child ... (II) [i]s unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act which is the subject of the statement.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[it is the duty of counsel for appealing parties to inform a reviewing court both as to the specific errors relied upon and as to the grounds, supporting facts and authorities therefor”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) An out-of-court statement made by a child ... describing any act of sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration ... performed with, by, on, or in the presence of the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, is admissible in evidence in any criminal, delinquency, or civil proceedings in which a child is a victim of an unlawful sexual offense ... if: (a) The court finds ... that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability; and (b) The child either: (1) Testifies at the proceeding; or (II) Is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act which is the subject of the statement. (2) If a statement is admitted pursuant to this section ... it is for the [fact finder] to determine the weight and credit to be given the statement and that, in making the determination, it [fact finder] shall consider the age and maturity of the child, the nature of the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, and any other relevant factor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.