Settlemire v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The witness] who testified about the intoxilyzer’s status although she did not supervise it at the time of Settlemire’s intoxilyzer test, is precisely the type of analyst the Court anticipated might be challenged based on its holding in Me lendez-Diaz. The Court made clear, however, that it did not intend its holding to “sweep[ ] away an accepted rule governing the admission of scientific evidence.” We shall not construe Melendez-Diaz as doing what the Court clearly stated it was not doing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kiona F. Boutang v. State

2. “Contrary to the dissent's suggestion|[,] ... we do not hold, and it is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person as part of the prosecution's case.... [DJocu-ments prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimomial records. See infra, at 2550-2551, 2552.”

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