Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Connecticut v. Porter (1997), State v. Copeland (1996)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Frye v. United States · Delaware v. Fensterer · Yagow v. United States · Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Zimmerman v. State · State v. Cooke““because, even though two human genomes may vary at approximately three million sites, the DNA typing analysis currently employed examines only a few sites for variation in the DNA sequence. The theory is that, besides identical twins, no two individuals will have entire DNA sequences which are identical. The DNA prints which result from the current FBI procedure may not be unique since the entire DNA molecule is not analyzed. Since two unrelated individuals may have identical DNA patterns from the fragments examined in a particular analysis, the potential exists for a match to be mistakenly found. For this reason, statistical interpretation regarding the probability of a coincidental match or the likelihood that two unrelated individuals have the same DNA type is necessary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coy v. Renico“1. The expert witness is qualified (D.R.E.702); 2. The evidence is otherwise admissible, relevant, and reliable (D.R.E. 401 and 402); 3. The bases for the opinion are those reasonably relied upon by experts in the field (D.R.E.703); 4. The specialized knowledge being offered will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue (D.R.E. 702); and 5. The evidence does not create unfair prejudice, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury (D.R.E. 403).”
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.