In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kostich

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a period of roughly 44 years between the prior and charged offenses did not require exclusion under OCGA §§ 24-4-414, 24-4-403
• holding that an expert in forensic interviewing of children’s testimony about recantation was not improper because it “did not directly address the victim’s credibility or express an opinion as to whether the child had actually been sexually abused”
• holding that an expert in forensic interviewing of children's testimony about recantation was not improper because it \did not directly address the victim's credibility or express an opinion as to whether the child had actually been sexually abused\
• evidence of molestation that occurred 44 years earlier relevant and admissible under Rule 414 to show pattern of molestation despite remoteness in time
• evidence of molestation that occurred 44 years earlier relevant and admissible under Rule 414 to show pattern of molestation despite remoteness in time
• molestation that occurred 44 years earlier admissible despite remoteness in time

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).