80 Md. App. 31 - Cobey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 879 - State v. Cauthron (1993), Armstead v. State (1996)
6 federal appellate · 65 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Frye v. United States · Reed v. State · People v. Wesley · 533 So. 2d 841 - Andrews v. State
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Extraction. DNA is chemically extracted from the sample and purified. 21 Fragmentation. The extracted DNA is then cut into fragments by restricting enzymes which, depending upon the enzyme selected, cut the DNA at specific points along the DNA chain. Because the sequential characteristics of DNA vary from person to person, everyone’s DNA gets cut up differently and the fragments will have different sizes. 3) Gel Electrophoresis. The DNA fragments are then separated by size. The fragments are placed in an agarose gel, to which an electrical current is applied. Because DNA has a natural negative charge, and because opposite electrical charges attract, the fragments move away from the negatively charged pole and mi grate toward the positive pole. The larger DNA fragments move more slowly through the gel and thus a shorter distance than the smaller fragments of DNA. The end result is that the fragments are sorted by size, from the largest to the smallest, into an orderly pattern of fragments along parallel lines. 4) Southern Blotting. The DNA band pattern of fragments in the gel is then transferred and permanently affixed onto a nylon membrane, in exactly the same positions as the fragments occupied in the gel. During this process, the double-stranded DNA fragments are chemically split apart — “unzipped” from one another — at their base pairings. 5) Hybridization. To identify the location of specific regions of DNA, radioactive probes are applied to the nylon membrane. A probe”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kinder“four experts said at trial, fell within generally acceptable scientific criteria. There was no expert testimony at trial contradicting the proposition that the data base supported the conclusion drawn. We think that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to establish a basis for the reliability and admission of DNA fingerprinting”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“under Frye the test was not whether the procedure is unanimously endorsed but rather whether it is generally accepted as reliable.”
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.