State v. Lowry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * it must be remembered that we are not here considering a case where there was a prior agreement that the results of the test might be admitted in evidence * *”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lassley · 283 F. Supp. 33 - Herman v. Eagle Star Insurance Company

2. ““The general principle of the acceptance of the lie detector test is set forth in 20 Am. Jr. p. 633: ‘Physiological or psychological deception tests used as instruments for the ascertainment of the truthfulness of a witness are still too much in the experimental field for the courts to approve of their general use. The deception tests devised by scientists are of the following three broad types: The association-reaction tests in which the time the subject takes to think of words associated with those in a list given him, some of which are neutral and some of which may evoke a guilty association, is carefully measured; the respiratory test, which is based upon the hypothesis that the breathing of the subject varies according to whether he is telling the truth; and the systolic blood pressure test. The instances in which such criteria have been subjected to judicial scrutiny are relatively infrequent. Those which have passed upon the question have held that the systolic blood pressure deception test for determining the truthfulness of testimony has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition as to justify the admission of expert testimony deduced from tests made under such theory.’ “We see no reason why, under the circumstances of this case, the result should have been admitted. There was no testimony offered which would indicate that there is at this time a general scientific recognition of such tests. Until it is established that reasonable certainty follows from ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 63 So. 2d 339 - Kaminski v. State · 94 Okla. Crim. 45 - Henderson v. State

3. ““All this is not to discredit the lie-detector as an instrument of utility and value. Its usefulness has been amply demonstrated by detective agencies, police departments and other law-enforcement agencies conducting criminal investigations. It is also being frequently employed in matters, other than investigation of crimes. By its use admissions and confessions are frequently secured, and facts developed which assist in further discoveries. Such admissions and confessions, if otherwise competent, have generally been admitted, and no reason now appears why they should not be admitted. But we are not here dealing with such questions.” (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 628.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Blosser