125 Wash. 2d 24 - State v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 407 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 413 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The criticisms of the test in this particular case, such as whether the proper procedures were carried out, whether the lab notes were adequate, whether the number of amplifications conformed to the laboratory protocol, are questions regarding whether this particular test was properly conducted and hence go to the issue of weight, not admissibility. They were therefore properly submitted to the jury. As we have previously explained, human error in the forensic laboratory will continue to be a relevant inquiry. However, the trial court is best suited to address such factual matters. Once PCR evidence is determined to be generally accepted, as it has been, then both proponents and opponents of a particular test should be able to garner the necessary information to present both sides of the issue of whether errors were committed in a given test to the factfinder when there is a challenge to the validity of a laboratory procedure. That is precisely what occurred in this case. The jury heard knowledgeable scientists for both the State and the defense testify at length on the issue of the validity of these particular tests. We find no error in the trial court's decision to allow the evidence concerning the PCR method of testing DNA to go to the jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roberts · State v. Roberts

2. “'[a]ny question concerning the specific procedures used by the company or expert goes to the reliability of the evidence and is properly considered by the jury in determining what weight to give to this evidence.’ ” (Emphasis added.) In addition, the NRC Report itself acknowledges the admissibility of DNA evidence (without distinguishing between PCR and RFLP methodology), as long as precautions suggested in the report are taken:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 284 Ill. App. 3d 695 - People v. Pope

3. “science may enjoy the credibility they deserve.' [Kamrin T.] MacKnight, [Comment, The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): The Second Generation of DNA Analysis Methods Takes the Stand, 9 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 287 ,] at 341 [(1993)].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 897 So. 2d 419 - JHH v. State