United States v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “That statement remains sound law inasmuch as it requires that experts who purport to apply their principles and methods to the facts of the case do so in a reliable manner. The Paoli Court's discussion of fit requires that expert opinions that apply principles or methods to the facts of the case and produce conclusions that have a debatable connection to the question in issue be predicated on a reliable methodology. This is the critical import of Paoli's discussion of fit within the context of reliability. Outside of this relatively narrow setting,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stone Container Corp. · 497 F. Supp. 2d 666 - In Re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation

2. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Smith · People v. Todmann

3. “[A]nd the type of science typically at issue in Daubert[ 4 ]m cases. Expert testimony based on empirical science does things like determining what substance something is (e.g., what is that white powder?) or measuring the quantity of something (e.g., how much alcohol is in the murder victim’s blood?). Forensic identification science has a different objective. Forensic identification evidence serves to connect a crime scene object or mark to the one and only source of that object or mark. The reliability of these sciences rests upon the experience and observational powers of their practitioners. While a strict application of the Dauberb factors to forensic identification sciences might be a fruitless exercise, due to the inherently experiential nature of this type of expertise, the [trial court] will be in the best position to make this determination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Castellon v. State