Polk v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 697 So. 2d 777 - Coleman v. State (1997), 863 So. 2d 31 - Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore (2003)
56 state decisions
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 Barker v. Wingo · Aguilar v. Texas · Ake v. Oklahoma · Frye v. United States · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I. Is there a theory, generally accepted in the scientific community, that supports the conclusion that DNA forensic testing can produce reliable results? II. Are there current techniques that are capable of producing reliable results in DNA identification and that are generally accepted in the scientific community? III. In this particular case, did the testing laboratory perform generally accepted scientific techniques without error in the performance or interpretation of the tests?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[P]rejudice to the defendant may manifest itself in two ways. First, the defendant may suffer because of the restraints to his liberty, whether it be the loss of his physical freedom, loss of a job, loss of friends or family, damage to his reputation, or anxiety. Second, the delay may actually impair the accused's ability to defend himself.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It is also imperative that no defendant have [DNA] evidence admitted against him without the benefit of an independent expert witness to evaluate the data on his behalf. In Ake v. Oklahoma , the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out, when the State made a defendant's mental condition an issue in their case, [that] the assistance of a psychiatrist could be crucial to the defendant's ability to defend himself. The Court continued, " '[P]sychiatrists gather facts . . .; they analyze the information gathered and from it draw plausible conclusions. . . . They know the probative questions to ask of the opposing party's *Page 1198 psychiatrists and how to interpret their answers. . . . Further, where permitted by evidentiary rules, psychiatrists can translate a medical diagnosis into language that will assist the trier of fact, and therefore offer evidence in a form that has meaning for the task at hand. . . .' "Employing like reasoning in this present state of the DNA testing technology, we find that due process considerations require that a defendant have access to an independent expert. This does not mean that a defendant has a right to choose whomever he pleases, at whatever costs. Rather, a defendant must only be allowed reasonable funds for access to an expert who can independently evaluate the evidence presented against him by the State, analyze it, and present that analysis at trial."”
2 later decisions 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.