Grim v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Certainly,' [the technical reviewer] reviewed the test results, was familiar with the testing process, and was equipped to testify on whether the written report showed that the test comported with proper procedures and whether the results of the test were commensurate with the testing devices used. He testified in terms - of what [the- analyst] “would” have done to conduct the test, and that it appeared from the report that [the analyst’s] result was correct. But he' could not testify as to whether [the analyst] had received the sample intact, whether [the analyst] had dropped or mishandled the sample, or whether [the analyst] had encountered any problems with the testing equipment. ' Additionally, [the technical reviewer’s] surrogate testimony could not “expose any lapses or lies on [the analyst’s] part.” [The technical reviewer’s] testimony did not afford Hingle the opportunity to cross-examine the analyst who had performed or observed the test on what that analyst “knew or observed about the events his certification concerned, i.e., the particular test and testing process he employed,” as required by Bullcoming . I observe that the State could have satisfied the Confrontation Clause here by simply having had [the technical reviewer] retest the pills and testify about the results of the retest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Perry Armstead v. State of Mississippi