United States v. Bear Stops’s Empirical Analysis
997 F.2d 451 · 1993
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Powers (1995), State v. Rolon (2001)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2244
Relies on Faretta v. California · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Chambers v. Mississippi · Rock v. Arkansas · Gregory Lumber Co. 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“behavioral manifestations of a sexually abused child”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, Bear Stops argues that the alleged evidentiary errors directly pertaining to count I involving P.M. as the victim “spilled-over” to infect counts II and III, the counts involving the younger. child, B.B. Because Bear Stops denies' that he sexually abused either P.M. or B.B., his credibility is involved in all three counts. Therefore, Bear Stops asserts that the alleged errors directly involving count I also affect counts II and III because his credibility was impeached. We disagree. The alleged errors in question all involved actual and alleged incidences of sexual abuse of P.M. Therefore, as Bear Stops appears to concede, these eviden-tiary issues are unique to P.M. and have no relevance to the counts involving B.B. beyond the general credibility of Bears Stops. We find the counts involving B.B. to be quite different from the one involving P.M. and the case against Bear Stops to be much stronger. Unlike with respect to P.M., there was no evidence of prior sexual abuse of B.B. (and no sexual experience beyond P.M. acting out sexually toward B.B.), and therefore, no valid basis existed to support an alternative explanation for why.B.B. exhibited symptoms of a child who has been sexually abused. For the same reasons, any argument explaining an al-ternativé source for B.B.’s sexual knowledge would be tenuous at best. There appeared to be no question that B.B. was able to identify his father with whom he had lived for approximately the first five years of his life. B.B.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]estrictions on a criminal defendant's rights to confront adverse witnesses and to present evidence 'may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.