State v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Stenson (1997), Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. (2003)
1 federal appellate · 84 state decisions — followed in 20 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
Relies on Frye v. United States · 37 Cal. 3d 351 - People v. McDonald · Love v. United States · 125 Wash. 2d 24 - State v. Russell · 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[i]f there is a significant dispute between qualified experts as to the validity of scientific evidence, it may not be admitted.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Greene · Eakins v. Huber“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Roberts“(1) whether the underlying theory is generally accepted in the scientific community and (2) whether there are techniques, experiments, or studies utilizing that theory which are capable of producing reliable results and are generally accepted in the scientific community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grant v. Boccia
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.