Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2242 · 18 U.S.C. § 2246
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Solem v. Helm · 681 So. 2d 521 - Hoops v. State · 863 So. 2d 31 - Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statement made by a child of tender years describing any act of sexual contact performed with or on the child by another is admissible in evidence 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 substantial indicia of reliability; and (b) the child either (1) testifies at the proceedings; or (2) is unavailable as a witness: provided, that when the child is unavailable as a witness, such statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. State · Chaupette v. State“Clearly, the accuracy of forensic interviewing is largely untestable, and that Daubert factor therefore does not apply when determining the admissibility of such an expert’s testimony. We note that there is no evidence to suggest that the testimonies in question from [Keith] Stovall and Dr. [Catherine] Dixon failed to meet any of the other factors. Further, the procedure followed by Stovall is peer-reviewed, has general acceptance in the relevant community, and has standards that control the technique’s operation. In fact, [Bryant] Carter’s own witness, Dr. [Gary] Mooers, indicated that he had no problems with the procedure followed by the CAC.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. State“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”
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.