Hoglund v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whenever an alleged child victim takes the witness stand in such cases, the child’s capacity to accurately describe a meeting with an adult which may involve touching, sexual stimulation, displays of affection and the like, is automatically in issue, whether or not there is an effort by the opponent of such witness to impeach on the basis of a lack of such capacity. The presence of that issue justifies the court in permitting some accrediting of the child witness in the form of opinions from parents, teachers, and others having adequate experience with the child, that the child is not prone to exaggerate or fantasize about sexual matters. Such opinions will facilitate an original credibility assessment of the child by the trier of fact, so long as they do not take the direct form of “I believe the child’s story”, or “In my opinion the child is telling the truth.””

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

2. “[Prosecutor]: Have you worked with other sexually abused children? [Dr. Mayle]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: Do you have any special training, experience or education in that area? [Dr. Mayle]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: Do you believe that, in your opinion do you believe that [A.H.] is prone to exaggerate or fantasize in sexual matters? [Dr. Mayle]: I saw no indication of that.”

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