State v. Meador’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 32 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The mere fact that the NHTSA studies attempted to quantify the reliability of the field sobriety tests in predicting unlawful BAC’s [breath-alcohol content] does not convert all of the observations of a person’s performance into scientific evidence. The police officer’s observations of the field sobriety exercises, other than the HGN test, should be placed in the same category as other commonly understood signs of impairment, such as glassy or bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, staggering, flushed face, labile emotions, odor of alcohol or driving patterns. * * “As long as the testimony by the officers is restricted to lay observations, we agree with the state that * * * the probative value of the psychomotor testing is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of West Bend v. Wilkens · 710 So. 2d 24 - Williams v. State

2. “"Reference to the exercises by using terms such as 'test,' 'pass,' ‘fail,’ or ‘points,’ however, creates a potential for enhancing the significance of the observations in relationship to the ultimate determination of impairment, as such terms give these layperson observations an aura of scientific validity. Therefore, such terms should be avoided to minimize the danger that the jury will attach greater significance to the results of the field sobriety exercises than to other lay observations of impairment.” [c.o., e.s.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Kan. App. 2d 1103 - State v. Shadden · 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 - United States v. Horn

3. “[ejvidenee perceived by lay jurors to be scientific in nature possesses an unusually high degree of persuasive power.[ 6 ] The function of the court is to ensure that the persuasive appeal is legitimate. The value of proffered expert scientific testimony critically depends on the scientific validity of the general propositions utilized by the expert. Propositions that a court finds possess significantly increased potential to influence the trier of fact as scientific assertions, therefore, should be supported by appropriate scientific validation. This approach ensures that expert testimony does not enjoy persuasive appeal of science without subjecting its propositions to the verification processes of science.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Torres · State v. Ferrer