Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 So. 2d 296 - Prewitt v. State

460 So. 2d 296 - Prewitt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2000

14 state decisions

70198419902000decided

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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · Bumper v. North Carolina · Frye v. United States · Angrist v. United States · Gooding v. United States

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

  1. “" In appropriate cases , Alabama follows the rule in Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1923), for safeguarding 'against admission into evidence of facts gleaned from an unreliable scientific test.' Ex parte Dolvin , 391 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1980); see, Wilcutt v. State , 41 Ala. App. 25 , 123 So.2d 193 , cert. denied, 271 Ala. 315 , 123 So.2d 203 (1960); Flurry v. State , 52 Ala. App. 64 , 289 So.2d 632 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 720 , 289 So.2d 644 (1974); Wynn v. State , 423 So.2d 294 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). In order to satisfy the Frye test for general admissibility, a scientific principle or discovery, or evidence produced therefrom, 'must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' Frye v. United States , supra."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “emerging trend appears to be a rule which prohibits the admission of hypnotically induced recollections (at least until such time as they are proven to be in compliance with the Frye test), but permits pre -hypnosis evidence from that same witness on the same subject,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In appropriate cases, Alabama follows the rule in Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), for safeguarding `against admission into evidence of facts gleaned from an unreliable scientific test.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.