People v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably United States v. Bonds (1993), State v. Sivri (1994)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 140 state decisions — followed in 37 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.
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prong I. Is there a theory, which is generally accepted in the scientific community, which supports the conclusion that DNA forensic testing can produce reliable results? Prong II. Are there techniques or experiments that currently exist that are capable of producing reliable results in DNA identification and which are generally accepted in the scientific community? Prong III. Did the testing laboratory perform the accepted scientific techniques in analyzing the forensic samples in this particular case?”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'There is nothing controversial about the theory underlying DNA typing. Indeed, this theory is so well accepted that its accuracy is unlikely even to be raised as an issue in hearings on the admissibility of the new tests. . . . the theory has been repeatedly put to the test and has successfully predicted subsequent observations. . . .' Thompson and Ford, DNA Typing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Tests , 75 Virginia Law Review 45 at 60-61 (1989).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is the view of this court that given the complexity of the DNA multi-system identification tests and the powerful impact that they may have on a jury, passing muster under Frye alone is insufficient to place this type of evidence before a jury without a preliminary, critical examination of the actual testing procedures performed in a particular case.”
5 later decisions 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.