Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 30 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Agent Riley testified that he has conducted thousands of neutron activation analysis tests in the past twelve years and that he has testified as an expert witness on the subject approximately 150 times in both state and federal courts. He testified that neutron activation analysis is conducted by placing material in the core of a nuclear reacter. When radioactive, the material emits gamma rays which are analyzed to determine the amounts of trace elements present in the material. Riley testified that universities and government agencies throughout the world use the technique on a daily basis to perform elemental composition analysis and that it is a scientifically valid technique and is accepted worldwide. * * * * * * “No Indiana case authority concerning the admissibility of neutron activation analysis has been found. However, there are cases from other jurisdictions admitting such evidence. See: U.S. v. Stifel, (6th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 431 , cert. denied 401 U.S. 994 , 91 S.Ct. 1232 , 28 L.Ed.2d 531 ; State v. Jackson, (1978) Mo.App., 566 S.W.2d 227 ; State v. Duncan, (1976) Mo.App., 540 S.W.2d 130 . The neutron activation analysis has been generally recognized as reliable.” Jones v. State, supra, 425 N.E.2d at 130-1 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince

2. ““As was noted with regard to trace metal detection technique, the persuasiveness of evidence produced by such a test is, in large measure, dependent upon the expertise of the witness who conducted it, which in the final analysis is to be determined by the jury, only after an opportunity of careful cross examination. Reid v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 555 , 372 N.E.2d 1149, 1152 . There was no error in allowing this testimony. “Appellant further argues that the evidence presented was without sufficient relevance and is without merit. Clearly the results of the test increased the likelihood that the bullets found in the defendant’s pocket were from the same box as the bullet removed from the victim. The law in Indiana with respect to relevancy is that evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to prove a material fact. Lock v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 1360, 1367 . There is no error on this issue.” Id. 425 N.E.2d at 131 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince

3. “The lack of certainty in Agent Riley’s ultimate conclusion is further emphasized by his testimony that as many as 100,000 bullets are produced from the same batch of lead, that 200 boxes of bullets of similar composition would in turn result, and that all retailers in a particular geographic area might consequently market bullets of similar composition. Furthermore, Agent Riley stated that “there are other leads that are going to be manufactured some place along the way that can be very close to this composition, if not the same.” In stating that the bullets “could have come” from the same source, he offered little more than an educated guess ____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Noel