product rule in Arizona

18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Marshallgreen arizctapp · 1998 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2011 2 sentences 2011See Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 68 , 84 P.3d at 474-75 (“DNA evidence based on the product rule method of calculating the probability of a match is acceptable when the database satisfies Frye requirements.”) 12 ; State v. Marshall, 193 Ariz. 547, ¶¶ 10-11 , 975 P.2d 137, 141-42 (App.1998). 2011See Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 68 , 84 P.3d at 474-75 (“DNA evidence based on the product rule method of calculating the probability of a match is acceptable when the database satisfies Frye requirements.”) 12 ; State v. Marshall, 193 Ariz. 547, ¶¶ 10-11 , 975 P.2d 137, 141-42 (App.1998).	3	3
State v. Biblegreen ariz · 1993 · cited in 6 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1994–1998 2 sentences 1997One reason we rejected statistical probabilities calculated using the product rule in Bible was that "the database relied on [was] not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium." Bible, 175 Ariz. at 586 , 858 P.2d at 1189 . 1997One reason we rejected statistical probabilities calculated using the product rule in Bible was that "the database relied on [was] not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium." Bible, 175 Ariz. at 586 , 858 P.2d at 1189 .	2	6
State v. Davoltgreen ariz · 2004 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 68 , 84 P.3d at 474-75 (“DNA evidence based on the product rule method of calculating the probability of a match is acceptable when the database satisfies Frye requirements.”) 12 ; State v. Marshall, 193 Ariz. 547, ¶¶ 10-11 , 975 P.2d 137, 141-42 (App.1998). 2011See Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 68 , 84 P.3d at 474-75 (“DNA evidence based on the product rule method of calculating the probability of a match is acceptable when the database satisfies Frye requirements.”) 12 ; State v. Marshall, 193 Ariz. 547, ¶¶ 10-11 , 975 P.2d 137, 141-42 (App.1998).	2	2
State v. Hummertgreen ariz · 1997 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1998–2004 2 sentences 1998A year later in Hummert, the court again had occasion to discuss the product rule and provided a significant clarification of Bible’s prohibition of statistical evidence derived under that method: “Arguably, with a database that meets Frye requirements, the product rule may be accepted as effective for calculating the probability of a random match.” 188 Ariz. at 123, 933 P.2d at 1191. ¶ 10 We further note that the NRC issued an updated report in 1996, after the decisions in Bible and Johnson , withdrawing its earlier suggestion that the product rule be modified and restricted for forensic purp 1998A year later in Hummert, the court again had occasion to discuss the product rule and provided a significant clarification of Bible’s prohibition of statistical evidence derived under that method: “Arguably, with a database that meets Frye requirements, the product rule may be accepted as effective for calculating the probability of a random match.” 188 Ariz. at 123, 933 P.2d at 1191. ¶ 10 We further note that the NRC issued an updated report in 1996, after the decisions in Bible and Johnson , withdrawing its earlier suggestion that the product rule be modified and restricted for forensic purp	2	2
State v. Johnsongreen ariz · 1996 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1997–1998 2 sentences 1998The court noted that the NRC had concluded that “alternative methods [to the modified ceiling method], primarily the [unrestricted] product rule, are now appropriate.” 186 Ariz. at 335 , 922 P.2d at 300. 1997Id. at 590 , 858 P.2d at 1193 ; see also Johnson, 186 Ariz. at 335 , 922 P.2d at 300 . 2.	1	2
State v. Hershbergergreen arizctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Id. at 75-78 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 (summary dismissal unwarranted when record limited to “standard printed form” and claim supported by “specific factual allegations” about “when, where, and by whom the promise had been made,” identity of “witness to its communication,” and attorney’s advice to conceal promise from court); see also State v. Hershberger, 180 Ariz. 495, 497-98 , 885 P.2d 183, 185-86 (App. 1994) (evidentiary hearing required on claim plea induced by attorney’s misrepresentation of sex offender registration provisions). 2017Id. at 75-78 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 (summary dismissal unwarranted when record limited to “standard printed form” and claim supported by “specific factual allegations” about “when, where, and by whom the promise had been made,” identity of “witness to its communication,” and attorney’s advice to conceal promise from court); see also State v. Hershberger, 180 Ariz. 495, 497-98 , 885 P.2d 183, 185-86 (App. 1994) (evidentiary hearing required on claim plea induced by attorney’s misrepresentation of sex offender registration provisions).	1	1
State v. Youngbloodgreen ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013Cf. State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502, 506 , 844 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1993) (finding no Brady violation when “one could only say that the unpreserved evidence could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have been exculpatory or inculpatory”). 2013Cf. State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502, 506 , 844 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1993) (finding no Brady violation when “one could only say that the unpreserved evidence could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have been exculpatory or inculpatory”).	1	1
Commonwealth v. Lanigangreen mass · 1992 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Their concern focused primarily on the product rule’s failure to account for the possibility of “population substructures,” that is, “genetic subgroups which would ‘most likely occur along racial and ethnic lines and present significant pockets of genetic variation within the larger population group.’ ” State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 157 , 646 A.2d 169, 190 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 160-61 , 596 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992) (Lanigan I). 1995Their concern focused primarily on the product rule’s failure to account for the possibility of “population substructures,” that is, “genetic subgroups which would ‘most likely occur along racial and ethnic lines and present significant pockets of genetic variation within the larger population group.’ ” State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 157 , 646 A.2d 169, 190 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 160-61 , 596 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992) (Lanigan I).	1	1
State v. Sivrigreen conn · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Their concern focused primarily on the product rule’s failure to account for the possibility of “population substructures,” that is, “genetic subgroups which would ‘most likely occur along racial and ethnic lines and present significant pockets of genetic variation within the larger population group.’ ” State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 157 , 646 A.2d 169, 190 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 160-61 , 596 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992) (Lanigan I). 1995Their concern focused primarily on the product rule’s failure to account for the possibility of “population substructures,” that is, “genetic subgroups which would ‘most likely occur along racial and ethnic lines and present significant pockets of genetic variation within the larger population group.’ ” State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 157 , 646 A.2d 169, 190 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 160-61 , 596 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992) (Lanigan I).	1	1
State v. Hummertgreen arizctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995See Hummert, 183 Ariz. at 489 , 905 P.2d at 498 . 1995See Hummert, 183 Ariz. at 489 , 905 P.2d at 498 .	1	1
State v. Streichgreen vt · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Compare Streich, 658 A.2d at 48 , with Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 336-37 (Okla. 1995Compare Streich, 658 A.2d at 48 , with Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 336-37 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). .	1	1
Taylor v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Compare Streich, 658 A.2d at 48 , with Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 336-37 (Okla. 1995Compare Streich, 658 A.2d at 48 , with Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 336-37 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). .	1	1
Prater v. Stategreen ark · 1991 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993For other descriptions of the product rule, see Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429, 438 (1991); Pennell, 584 A.2d at 517 ; Cauthron, 846 P.2d at 513 . 22 . 1993For other descriptions of the product rule, see Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429, 438 (1991); Pennell, 584 A.2d at 517 ; Cauthron, 846 P.2d at 513 . 22 .	1	1
State v. Cauthrongreen wash · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen minn · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
Pirtle v. Stategreen ind · 1975 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984	1	1
United States v. Fishergreen mnd · 1971 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Blackledge v. Allison green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1994However, in Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 , 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-30 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that despite the defendant’s statement to the trial judge that his lawyer had made no promises to him to influence his plea, the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s “representations at the time his guilty plea was accepted were so much the product of such factors as misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation by others as to make the guilty plea a constitutionally inadequate basis for imprisonment.” In add 1994However, in Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 , 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629-30 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that despite the defendant’s statement to the trial judge that his lawyer had made no promises to him to influence his plea, the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s “representations at the time his guilty plea was accepted were so much the product of such factors as misunderstanding, duress, or misrepresentation by others as to make the guilty plea a constitutionally inadequate basis for imprisonment.” In add	3	1983–2017
Madrid v. Avalon Care Center-Chandler, L.L.C. green arizctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2020Rule 54(c) “is the product of a rule change petition intended to make clear ‘whether an order of a Superior Court is, or is intended to be, a final, appealable “judgment”’ and to allow ease in ‘determining the extent to which a putative judgment resolves a case as to all claims and all parties.’” Madrid, 236 Ariz. at 223 , ¶ 4 (quoting Petition to Amend Rules 54 and 58, Ariz. R.	1	2020–2020
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. green arizctapp · 1993 2 sentences 1999See A.R.S. §§ 12-683(2) (1992), -681(6) (Supp.1998-1999) (defining "reasonably foreseeable" alterations); Piper, 180 Ariz. at 175-76 , 883 P.2d at 412 -13 (citing 3 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 43:16 n. 80; 1A Louis R. 1999See A.R.S. §§ 12-683(2) (1992), -681(6) (Supp.1998-1999) (defining "reasonably foreseeable" alterations); Piper, 180 Ariz. at 175-76 , 883 P.2d at 412 -13 (citing 3 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 43:16 n. 80; 1A Louis R.	1	1999–1999
People v. Dalcollo green illappct · 1996 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
McDonald v. Inland Container Corp. green scotus · 1997 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
Commonwealth v. Rosier green mass · 1997 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
State v. Weeks green mont · 1995 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
Armstead v. State green md · 1996 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
People v. Watson green nysupct · 1995 2 sentences 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
State v. Johnson green arizctapp · 1995 2 sentences 1998As we noted in State v. Johnson, 183 Ariz. 623 , 630 n. 8, 905 P.2d 1002 , 1009 n. 8 (App.1995), “[b]ecause ‘neither logic nor authority supports confining ourselves to a snapshot, rather than viewing the motion picture, of technological advancement,’ [quoting Bible,] 175 Ariz. at 587 , 858 P.2d at 1190 , we survey all information available and consider cases and scientific literature published after trial.” Moreover, the state presented expert testimony at the Frye hearing that the FBI’s method of calculating probability statistics had at that time been generally accepted in the relevant scie 1998As we noted in State v. Johnson, 183 Ariz. 623 , 630 n. 8, 905 P.2d 1002 , 1009 n. 8 (App.1995), “[b]ecause ‘neither logic nor authority supports confining ourselves to a snapshot, rather than viewing the motion picture, of technological advancement,’ [quoting Bible,] 175 Ariz. at 587 , 858 P.2d at 1190 , we survey all information available and consider cases and scientific literature published after trial.” Moreover, the state presented expert testimony at the Frye hearing that the FBI’s method of calculating probability statistics had at that time been generally accepted in the relevant scie	1	1998–1998
Lindsey v. People green colo · 1995 1 sentence 1998See, e.g., Bonds; Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281 (Colo. 1995); State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873 , 908 P.2d 566 (Idaho 1995); People v. Dalcollo, 282 Ill.	1	1998–1998
State v. Kinder green mo · 1996 1 sentence 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
State v. Faught green idaho · 1995 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Bonds; Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281 (Colo. 1995); State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873 , 908 P.2d 566 (Idaho 1995); People v. Dalcollo, 282 Ill. 1998See, e.g., Bonds; Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281 (Colo. 1995); State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873 , 908 P.2d 566 (Idaho 1995); People v. Dalcollo, 282 Ill.	1	1998–1998
People v. Chandler green michctapp · 1995 1 sentence 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
State v. Freeman green neb · 1997 1 sentence 1998App.3d 944 , 218 Ill.Dec. 435 , 669 N.E.2d 378 (Ill.App.1996); Armstead v. Maryland, 342 Md. 38 , 673 A.2d 221 (Md.1996); Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 , 685 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.1997); People v. Chandler, 211 MichApp. 604, 536 N.W.2d 799 (Mich.App. 1995) ; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313 (Mo. 1996) , cert. denied, — U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 149 , 139 L.Ed.2d 95 (1997); State v. Weeks, 270 Mont. 63 , 891 P.2d 477 (Mont.1995); State v. Freeman, 571 N.W.2d 276 (Neb. 1997) ; People v. Watson, 167 Misc.2d 418 , 634 N.Y.S.2d 935 (Sup.Ct.1995); Copeland . ¶ 11 Marshall suggests, however, that because mu	1	1998–1998
Frye v. United States red cadc · 1923 1 sentence 1997NOTES [1] For a detailed explanation of RFLP analysis, the method used in this case, with cites to the scientific literature, see Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994). [2] See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (C.A.D.C. 1923), explained and applied in Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578 , 858 P.2d at 1181 . [3] The product rule is often described as simple multiplication of the frequency of the occurrence of two alleles in the relevant population.	1	1997–1997
State v. Anderson green nm · 1994 2 sentences 1997NOTES [1] For a detailed explanation of RFLP analysis, the method used in this case, with cites to the scientific literature, see Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994). [2] See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (C.A.D.C. 1923), explained and applied in Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578 , 858 P.2d at 1181 . [3] The product rule is often described as simple multiplication of the frequency of the occurrence of two alleles in the relevant population. 1997NOTES [1] For a detailed explanation of RFLP analysis, the method used in this case, with cites to the scientific literature, see Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 , 858 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994). [2] See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (C.A.D.C. 1923), explained and applied in Bible, 175 Ariz. at 578 , 858 P.2d at 1181 . [3] The product rule is often described as simple multiplication of the frequency of the occurrence of two alleles in the relevant population.	1	1997–1997
State v. Pennell green delsuperct · 1989	1	1993–1993
Reed v. McLaws green ariz · 1941	1	1972–1972
OS Stapley Company v. Miller green ariz · 1968	1	1972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2203 (3) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 54 (1964–2025) IL 48 (1967–2023) NJ 42 (1977–2025) PA 39 (1974–2025) NY 34 (1965–2018) WA 20 (1969–2024) AZ 18 (1972–2020) TX 17 (1967–2023) MD 17 (1984–2017) FL 16 (1981–2015) OH 13 (1981–2026) IN 13 (1908–2017) OR 11 (1996–2023) TN 10 (1973–2022) GA 9 (1977–2026) MA 9 (1977–2020) MI 9 (1983–2025) AL 8 (1991–2012) MO 8 (1996–2011) OK 8 (1979–2018) CT 7 (1989–2003) MS 7 (1983–1999) KS 6 (1968–2026) NE 6 (1954–2002) DC 5 (1992–2013) CO 5 (1995–2026) NM 4 (1994–1996) MN 4 (1985–2008) VA 4 (1981–2009) SD 4 (1980–1997) ME 4 (1997–2000) KY 3 (1986–2023) LA 3 (1966–2018) WY 3 (1970–2000) RI 2 (1997–2005) SC 2 (1995–2015) WV 2 (1986–2007) NC 2 (1987–1997) IA 2 (1999–2018) AK 2 (1977–1995) NH 2 (1992–2003)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check