State v. Fertig’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Frye v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America · Energy Cooperative, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · State v. Johnson
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“procedural safeguards cannot fully protect against the admission of [some improper] testimony. . . . [Therefore] hypnosis should not be used to prepare a witness to testify in court, . . . in an attempt to improve the recall of a previously unreliable or uncertain witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When trial courts admit hypnotically-refreshed testimony, they should instruct the jury of the effect that hypnosis may have on that testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“procedural safeguards similar to those in Hurd to determine case-by-case whether hypnotically-refreshed testimony is 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.