Sandoval v. Acevedo’s Empirical Analysis
996 F.2d 145 · 1993
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Tyson v. Trigg (1995), Agard v. Portuondo (1997)
23 federal appellate · 9 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 Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Harmelin v. Michigan · Zant v. Stephens · Michigan v. Lucas
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The essential insight behind the rape shield statute is that in an age of post-Victorian sexual practice, in which most unmarried young women are sexually active, the fact that a woman has voluntarily engaged in a particular sexual activity on previous occasions does not provide appreciable support for an inference that she consented to engage in this activity with the defendant on the occasion on which she claims that she was raped. And allowing defense counsel to spread the details of a woman’s sex life on the public record not only causes embarrassment to the woman but by doing so makes it less likely that victims of rape will press charges.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gagne v. Booker · Gagne v. Booker“The fact that [she] had had pleasurable anal intercourse with another man on another occasion would not show that she would have enjoyed having it with Sandoval on an occasion when he was enraged and wanted by penetrating her anally to humiliate and, quite possibly, physically hurt her. Indeed, by that logic rape shield laws would be unconstitutional to the core because their central aim is to prevent the drawing of an inference of consent from previous con- • sensual intercourse with other men.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gagne v. Booker · Gagne v. Booker“[E]ven without a rape shield law it is doubtful that testimony that she had enjoyed it with another man would be admissible, for it doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, require a rape shield law to show that consent to sex with X on one occasion is not good evidence of consent to sex with Y on another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gagne v. Booker · Gagne v. Booker
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.