State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably State v. White (1995), State v. Abraham (1994)
73 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Caldwell v. Mississippi · Ake v. Oklahoma · State v. Caddell · State v. Corbett
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n order to make a threshold showing of specific need for the expert sought, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) he will be deprived of a fair trial without the expert assistance, or (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that it will materially assist him in the preparation of his case.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The taking and analysis of fingerprints is largely a mechanical function, although admittedly one which requires some training and experience. Basically, the analysis of fingerprints involves comparing the latent print taken from the scene of the crime with a known print of the defendant to determine whether there are points of similarity. Once a given number of points of similarity are observed, the expert draws the conclusion that the two prints were made by the same person. It has been my experience that all of the steps involved in fingerprint analysis can be readily demonstrated to a jury in such a manner that the jurors are able to determine for themselves whether the points of similarity are in fact similar. Likewise, the jurors are as capable as the expert of counting the number of points of similarity. There simply is nothing so mysterious or difficult about fingerprint analysis and comparison as to prevent the ordinary lay juror from determining whether the procedure has been performed correctly and the expert has reached the right conclusion, once the technique is explained and pointed out to the juror. For this reason, a defendant can properly defend himself against such evidence— if in fact he will ever be able to defend himself — by the simple expedient of thorough cross-examination of the State’s fingerprint witness. See State v. Corbett, 307 N.C. 169 , 297 S.E.2d 553 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bridges“little more than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bridges
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.