19 Va. App. 30 - Husske v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Defense counsel must have access to adequate expert assistance, even when the admissibility of the results of analytical techniques is not in question, because there is still a need to review the quality of the laboratory work and the interpretation of results. When the prosecution proposes to use DNA typing evidence or when it has been used in the investigation of the case, an expert should be routinely available to the defendant. If necessary, he or she should be able to apply for funds early in the discovery stages to retain experts without a showing of relevance that might reveal trial strategy. Whenever possible, a portion of the DNA sample should be preserved for independent analysis by the defense."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1189 - Dubose v. State

2. “"There is no principled way to distinguish between psychiatric and nonpsychiatric experts. The question in each case must be not what field of science or expert knowledge is involved, but rather how important the scientific issue is in the case, and how much help a defense expert could have given."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1189 - Dubose v. State

3. “); William C. Thompson and Simon Ford, DNA Testing: Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Tests , supra, 147 (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 662 So. 2d 1189 - Dubose v. State