United States of America v. James Smithers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “cases also discuss whether this type of testimony touched on the 'ultimate issue' in the case and therefore usurped the jury's role; whether there was other evidence against the defendant; and whether the jury could more properly evaluate the reliability of eyewitness testimony through cross-examination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bomas v. State · 412 F. App'x 760 - United States v. Seth Bunke

2. “Courts’ treatments of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification has experienced a dramatic transformation in the past twenty years and is still in a state of flux. Beginning in the early 1970’s, defense attorneys began to bring expert testimony into the courtroom. Then, courts were uniformly skeptical about admitting such testimony, elaborating a host of reasons why eyewitness experts should not be allowed to testify. This trend shifted with a series of decisions in the 1980’s, with the emerging view that expert testimony may be offered, in certain circumstances, on the subject of the psychological factors which influence the memory process .... This jurisprudential trend is not surprising in light of modern scientific studies which show that, while juries rely heavily on eyewitness testimony, it can be untrustworthy under certain circumstances. Recognizing the dichotomy between eyewitness errors and jurors’ reliance on eyewitness testimony, this Circuit has held that expert testimony on the subject of eyewitness identification is admissible.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 934 So. 2d 1100 - Simmons v. State · Bomas v. State

3. “(1) whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert’s testimony is scientifically valid; and (2) whether that reasoning or methodology properly could be applied to the facts at issue to aid the trier of fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 F. Supp. 2d 1205 - Wynacht v. Beckman Instruments, Inc. · 501 F. Supp. 2d 1011 - Gass v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.