State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) If any person charged with a crime and held in jail solely by reason thereof shall not be brought to trial within ninety (90) days after such person’s arraignment on die charge, such person shall be entided to be discharged from further liability to be tried for die crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (3). “(3) The time for trial may be extended beyond die limitations of subsections (1) and (2) of this section for any of the following reasons: (c) There is material evidence which is unavailable; diat reasonable efforts have been made to procure such evidence; and that diere are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence can be obtained and trial commenced within the next succeeding ninety (90) days. Not more than one continuance may be granted die state on diis ground, unless for good cause shown . . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Noriega

2. ““The newer PCR amplification procedure is less definitive [than RFLP] as it can only exclude an individual as being a possible donor of the sample. Thus, the final result is that the tested individual is not the sample donor or the individual is within a certain percentage of the population which could have donated the sample. The advantages of PCR as opposed to RFLP are that it is faster, cheaper, and capable of being performed at more facilities. Additionally, it can test samples too small and/or in too poor a condition to be tested by RFLP analysis.” (Emphasis added.) Hill, 257 Kan. at 782 .”

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

3. ““DNA print testing and the process of Restriction Fragment [Length] Polymorphism analysis have been recognized as rehable, have gained general acceptance in the scientific community, involve scientifically and professionally established techniques, and thus, meet the criteria for admissibility under the standard set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).” Deppish, 248 Kan. 217 , Syl. ¶ 6.”

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