171 So. 3d 1063 - State v. Bernard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “, To assist the trial courts in their preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and admissible at trial, the Supreme Court expounded on the factors to consider: “1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; 2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; 3) the known -or potential rate of error; and 4) whether the methodology is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.” [State v. Chauvin ] Id., 02-1188, p. 5 [ (La.5/20/03) ], 846 So.2d [697] at 701 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97 ). In Foret , the court adopted these factors as a guide for lower courts in resolving the issue. Foret, . 628 So.2d at 1123 . Thus, in order for technical or scientific expert testimony to be admissible under La. C.E. Art. 702, the scientific evidence must rise to a threshold level of reliability. Id. The trial court may consider one or more of the four Daubert factors, but that list of factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94 , 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97 . Rather, the law grants a trial court the same broad latitude in determining the reliability of scientific testimony as it does with its ultimate reliability determinations. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). A trial court has great discretion in determin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 217 So. 3d 1266 - State v. Lee

2. “In State v. Nicholson, 96-2110, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/26/97), 703 So.2d 173 , 177, this Court noted that a statement, even if it is made in response to a question, may be admitted as a dying declaration if it was made when the declarant was conscious of his condition and aware of his approaching demise. Also, the more serious the injury and the greater the victim is impaired, the more probable it is that the victim believed that he was dying. Id. The fact that [the victim] survived over twenty days after the shooting does not automatically render the statement inadmissible as a dying declaration. In Nicholson , 96-2110, p. 6-8, 703 So.2d at 176 -77 , this Court upheld the introduction of the victim's statements made to his mother and an investigating officer during his hospital stay as dying declarations even though the victim lingered for sixteen days before dying. See also State v. Matthews, 95-1245 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96) , 679 So.2d 977 (finding victim's statements qualified as dying declarations, even though the victim did not tell anyone he knew he was going to die; also noting the victim's grave condition and that he told his mother he loved her just before lapsing into unconsciousness on the way to the hospital); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La. 1980) (holding the victim's statements at the scene to a neighbor and at the hospital to a deputy were admissible as dying declarations, where he died eleven days later from six gunshot wounds ; also considering that the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carter

3. “A statement is admissible as a dying declaration if it is made when the declarant is conscious of his condition and aware of his approaching demise ... 'The victim need not express his awareness of his demise in direct terms, but rather the necessary state of mind may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the declaration.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carter