Prater v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 85 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “conduct a preliminary inquiry which must focus on (1) the reliability of the novel process used to generate the evidence, (2) the possibility that admitting the evidence would overwhelm, confuse or mislead the jury, and (3) the connection between the novel process evidence to be offered and the disputed factual issues in the particular case. [Citation omitted.] Under this relevancy approach, reliability is the critical element. . . . The relevancy approach, unlike the Frye standard, permits, but does not require, a referendum by the relevant scientific community to determine the reliability of the technique. Many times that factor alone will determine the issue. On the other hand, courts may look to a number of other factors which bear upon reliability. These include the novelty of the new technique, its relationship to more established modes of scientific analysis, the existence of specialized literature dealing with the technique, the qualifications and professional stature of expert witnesses, and the non-judicial uses to which the scientific techniques are put. [Citation omitted.] The frequency of erroneous results produced by a novel scientific technique is an important component of reliability. . . . ... [as is] proof of the use of the correct protocol during the specific test. After assessing the reliability of the evidence, the trial court must also weigh any danger that the evidence might confuse or mislead the jury. . . . This Rule 702 determination of whether the e”

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

2. “DNA tests should not be ruled admissible before the accused’s expert has had a chance to examine the evidence, procedures, and protocol. . . . [A]ccess to data, methodology, and actual results are crucial. An accused must be given the opportunity for independent expert review before a determination of reliability is made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Swanson v. State

3. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [Emphasis added.]”

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