State v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 109 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “questions regarding the reliability of DNA evidence in a given case go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004) · State v. Riley, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007)

2. “"The standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in Ohio as found in State v. Williams is whether the questioned evidence is relevant and will assist the trier of fact in understanding evidence presented or in determining a fact in issue. Pierce has not advanced any argument which would justify the use of a standard for the admissibility of DNA evidence different from that used in determining the admissibility of other scientific or technical evidence. DNA evidence may be relevant evidence which will assist the trier of fact in determining a fact in issue, and may be admissible, subject to a judicial analysis for prejudice. Any rebuttal evidence goes to weight rather than admissibility. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the DNA evidence in this case. "Although irrelevant for the determination of admissibility under Ohio law, the theory and procedures used in DNA typing are generally accepted within the scientific community. ‘[Fjorensic uses of DNA tests are both reliable and valid when properly performed and analyzed by skilled personnel.' (Boldface type deleted.) Genetic Witness: Forensic Uses of DNA Tests, supra, at 7-8. The National Research Council’s Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science also recently concluded that the procedures for measuring differences in DNA samples are ‘fundamentally sound.' National Research Council, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992) S-24.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2006) · 144 Ohio App. 3d 648 - State v. Luckett

3. “`[w]ith adequate cautionary instructions from the trial judge, vigorous cross-examination of the government's experts, and challenging testimony from defense experts, the jury should be allowed to make its own factual determination as to whether the evidence is reliable.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2006)