426 So. 2d 76 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 37 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(e.s.) As we observed in Brown v. State, 426 So.2d 88 -89: It is in the area of legal relevancy that certain undertones of Frye become applicable. If Frye should not be per se applied to bar evidence obtained from a new or controversial technique solely because the method is not generally accepted by the scientific community, the technique's reliability is a factor to be considered by the trial judge in determining the question of the evidence's legal relevance. As noted by Professor Giannelli, supra at 1235 (footnotes omitted):”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 470 So. 2d 770 - Hawthorne v. State · 570 So. 2d 412 - Lewis v. State

2. “evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 470 So. 2d 770 - Hawthorne v. State · 570 So. 2d 412 - Lewis v. State

3. ““[W]e conclude that the method by which testimony is hypnotically induced is not one that falls within the ambit of Frye . ‘[Technically the test is not directly applicable because it is concerned with the admissibility of expert opinion deduced from the results of a scientific technique, such as a lie detector test, and not with the admissibility of eyewitness testimony.’ Note, The Admissibility of Testimony Influenced by Hypnosis, 67 Va.L.Rev. 1203, 1217 (1981) (e.s.); accord, Commonwealth v. Juvenile, 381 Mass. 727 , 412 N.E.2d 339, 342-343 (1980). ' Our view is supported by that of the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Hurd, which observed: ‘Unlike the courts in Mena, supra, and Mack, supra, the court below did not demand, as a precondition of admissibility, that hypnosis be generally accepted as a means of reviving truthful or historically accurate recall. We think this was correct. The purpose of using hypnosis is not to obtain truth, as a polygraph or “truth serum” is supposed to do. Instead, hypnosis is employed as a means of overcoming amnesia and restoring the memory of a witness. See Spector & Foster, Admissibility of Hypnotic Statements: Is the Law of Evidence Susceptible?, 38 Ohio St.L.J. 567, 584 (1977).... In light of this purpose, hypnosis can be considered reasonably reliable if it is able to yield recollections as accurate as those of an ordinary witness, which likewise are often historically inaccurate.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Collins · State v. Brown