United States v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.3d 837 · 1996
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably United States v. Frega (1999), United States v. Wright (2000)
38 federal appellate · 8 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 1111 · 18 U.S.C. § 2119 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · United States v. Lopez · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Jusino v. Brown · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“between a sample and an individual; but rather, is used as a technique to exclude certain individuals as possible contributors to a particular sample. U.S. v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 845 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 520 U.S. 1193 , 117 S.Ct. 1483 , 137 L.Ed.2d 694 (1997). The Hicks Court explained: Each individual has a particular”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Each individual has a particular "type" that appears following PCR testing, called an "HLA-DQ alpha genotype." ... [T]here are only 21 possible types that can be found in humans. The frequency of occurrence for each PCR type varies throughout the human population. In this way, PCR testing can be compared to the more traditional methods of forensic testing, including the use of blood type evidence (under the ABO system) or hair sample evidence. Neither of the traditional methods singles out a particular individual as matching a particular sample, but both methods can exclude individuals as possible contributors if they are not within the blood type or hair sample type. The use of PCR typing to exclude individuals as possible contributors to a particular DNA sample is strikingly similar.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Those concerns may arise with respect to any forensic evidence. The potential for contamination may present an open field for cross-examination or may be addressed through the testimony of defense experts at trial, as is true with other forensic evidence. However, it does not mean that the PCR method itself is inappropriate for forensic use. The possibility of human error does not prevent scientists from relying on scientific analysis if safeguards against such errors exist and are followed. Courts do not require that scientific tests be infallible to be admissible.””
1 later decision 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.