263 So. 2d 613 - Worley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 15 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Q. Did you ever ask any of the 250 persons to attempt to disguise their voices? “ ‘A. This is another subject. This is another thing we do .expect to do and will get more funds from the Department of Justice to do. I have done some experiments on disguised voices. Suppose a defendant makes a telephone call by closing his nose and speaking this way (witness demonstrating), you see. What would happen through a rigorously controlled experiment comparing this voice with the normal? This is what we expect to do. I am certain when criminals know that they can no longer produce a normal telephone voice the first thing they would do is disguise their voices. I would like to know whether they can or cannot. Always they are close, even if a voice is disguised, we are able to find a good percent, but I don’t know. I have to produce a very comprehensive and controlled experiment on this matter. This is a good point, a very good point, disguised voices.’ (Emphasis added.)’’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Cal. App. 3d 69 - People v. Law

2. ““I fail to discern a distinctive difference between the analysis and identification of a voice by an expert based solely upon the scientific reproduction thereof (i.e. voiceprints) and the identification of a voice by a lay witness based" merely upon hearing the voice. Simon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 682 . It would seem that in each instance the question becomes one more properly relating to the weight or value to be given to such identification or testimony by the trier of fact. Clearly the victim of a threat or an obscene call is permitted to testify as to the identification of such voice by comparison with that of the alleged perpetrator. See Cason v. State, supra; Weinshenker v. State, supra; and Simon v. State, supra. See also annotation in 24 A.L.R.3d 1261 .” Id. at 615 (emphasis in original).”

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

3. ““We do not classify voices. In my dream, it is my dream to have a file of voices and when you have a voice of the offender you go to the file and select ten or fifteen that have the same classification and then try to see if they are known within this or not. The same as fingerprints. In the context, yes, I think more studies have to be done.” Worley v. State, 263 So. 2d 613, 618 (Fla.App.1972) (dissenting opinion).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Topa