Moeller v. Weber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 24 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Whether Moeller is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief based on his trial counsel’s performance at the March 3, 1997, Daubert hearing and the ultimate admission of expert testimony regarding the AJPOB region of the DNA evidence; B. Whether Moeller is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief based on his trial counsel’s failure to have tested the alleged gahnite which was the subject of the State’s soil expert’s testimony, and/or based on the trial court’s failure to conduct a Daubert hearing and the subsequent admission of expert testimony regarding the alleged gahnite; C. Whether Moeller is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief based on the trial court’s response to the jury’s question regarding whether Petitioner would ever have a chance to appear before a parole board; D. Whether a pretrial screening requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the aggravating circumstance upon which Moeller’s death sentence was based be returned by a grand jury in an indictment or be set forth in an information under South Dakota law; and E. Whether Moeller is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief based on the trial court having admitted evidence of Moses Schanfield’s DNA testing and Schanfield’s testimony at Moeller’s trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moeller v. Weber

2. “In furtherance of our belief that the trial court did not err in admitting the disputed DNA evidence, we note that the habeas court effectively conducted what might be referred to as a “post-conviction” Daubert hearing. During the ha beas hearing, Moeller’s DNA expert was allowed to testify at length on problems she perceived in the APO-B testing. However, even at this stage, Moeller’s expert was unable to convince the habeas court that the evidence based on the APO-B marker failed to meet our admission standards. All the habeas court found was that there is disagreement in the DNA community on whether APO-B is a valid marker. Again, perfect agreement is not a prerequisite to admission of scientific evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Moeller v. Weber

3. “Unquestionably, the State in the exercise of its discretion may choose whether to prosecute individuals and what charges to bring against them. There is also no question that this general princi pie extends to the prosecution of a person suspected of committing a crime for which the penalty, upon conviction, is either life imprisonment or execution by lethal injection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Moeller v. Weber