Mitchell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Stopher v. Commonwealth (2001), Fugate v. Commonwealth (1999)
38 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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Edwards v. Arizona · Frye v. United States · United States v. Downing · Stanford v. Commonwealth
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“pursuant to KRE 702 and Daubert , expert scientific testimony must be proffered to a trial court. The trial court judge must conduct a preliminary hearing on the matter utilizing the standards set forth in Daubert . " (Emphasis added.) The majority circumvents this requirement by proclaiming that because hair analysis has been admissible in Kentucky for many years, presumably because it met the Frye test of general acceptance, "trial judges in Kentucky may take judicial notice that [it has] achieved the status of scientific reliability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Faced with a proffer of scientific testimony,. . . the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.”
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.