Rivers, Danny Richard Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not violate defendant’s right to present evidence when it prohibited him from cross-examining the victim about later instances of sexual abuse under the theory that the victim was projecting false allegations onto the defendant
• involving a specifically documented prior sexual assault by another individual, though we held that admission was not constitutionally required
• upholding exclusion of child victim’s other sexual abuse and distinguishing Bear Stops as permitting evidence where young child’s unusual behavior could be explained no other way
• distinguishing Bear Stops in part based on timing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).