Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 California opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Huntingdon v. Crowleygreen2 sentences1979Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' " (Huntingdon v. Crowley, supra. 64 Cal.2d 647 . 653.) “There is a probability factor in even the most carefully structured scientific inquiry; seldom is it possible to exclude all possible chance for error in human endeav 1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 | 4 | 7 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1994Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” ( 293 F. at p. 1014 .) Notwithstanding the appellation “Kelly/Frye,” this court approved the Frye formulation 10 years before the Kelly decision. 1994Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." ( 293 F. at p. 1014 .) Notwithstanding the appellation "Kelly/Frye," this court approved the Frye formulation 10 years before the Kelly decision. | 2 | 6 |
People v. Kellyyellow2 sentences1994Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Id. at p. 1014, italics added and quoted in Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 .) In Kelly, we explained that prior California cases, and “most” sister state cases, have followed Frye and “assigned the task of determining r 1994Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Id. at p. 1014, italics added and quoted in Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 .) In Kelly, we explained that prior California cases, and “most” sister state cases, have followed Frye and “assigned the task of determining r | 1 | 3 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences1997(See, e.g., People v. Jones[, supra,] 52 Cal.2d [at p.] 653 . . . [‘truth serum’]; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737 , 752 . . . [Tie detector’ test] . . . .)” (Huntingdon v. Crowley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at pp. 653-654.) Fourteen years after Jones wás decided, an appellate court rejected the reliability of sodium amytal interviews in People v. Johnson (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 988 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 118 ], where a videotape of the defendant’s sodium amytal interview had been admitted over his objection. 1966(See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ] [“truth serum”] ; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [ 312 P.2d 665 ] [“lie detector” test] ; cf. People v. Williams (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 860-862 [ 331 P.2d 251 ] [“Nalline” test].) In applying this rule the trial court considered, in the absence of the jury, the testimony of Drs. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Spignogreen2 sentences1976(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-654 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ] [blood tests]; People v. Law, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 69, 74 [voiceprints]; People v. Spigno (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 319 P.2d 458 ] [polygraph tests].) Some criticism has been directed at the Frye standard, primarily on the ground that the test is too conservative, often resulting in the prevention of the admission of relevant evidence (see United States v. Sample (E.D.Pa. 1974) 378 *31 F.Supp. 43, 53 [voiceprints admissible in probation revocation proceeding]; McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 203 1976(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-654 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ] [blood tests]; People v. Law, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 69, 74 [voiceprints]; People v. Spigno (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 319 P.2d 458 ] [polygraph tests].) Some criticism has been directed at the Frye standard, primarily on the ground that the test is too conservative, often resulting in the prevention of the admission of relevant evidence (see United States v. Sample (E.D.Pa. 1974) 378 *31 F.Supp. 43, 53 [voiceprints admissible in probation revocation proceeding]; McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 203 | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Mills v. Nicholsgreen1 sentence1976(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-654 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ] [blood tests]; People v. Law, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 69, 74 [voiceprints]; People v. Spigno (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 319 P.2d 458 ] [polygraph tests].) Some criticism has been directed at the Frye standard, primarily on the ground that the test is too conservative, often resulting in the prevention of the admission of relevant evidence (see United States v. Sample (E.D.Pa. 1974) 378 *31 F.Supp. 43, 53 [voiceprints admissible in probation revocation proceeding]; McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 203 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lawgreen1 sentence1976(Huntingdon v. Crowley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-654 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 414 P.2d 382 ] [blood tests]; People v. Law, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 69, 74 [voiceprints]; People v. Spigno (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 279, 290 [ 319 P.2d 458 ] [polygraph tests].) Some criticism has been directed at the Frye standard, primarily on the ground that the test is too conservative, often resulting in the prevention of the admission of relevant evidence (see United States v. Sample (E.D.Pa. 1974) 378 *31 F.Supp. 43, 53 [voiceprints admissible in probation revocation proceeding]; McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 203 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1966(See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ] [“truth serum”] ; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [ 312 P.2d 665 ] [“lie detector” test] ; cf. People v. Williams (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 860-862 [ 331 P.2d 251 ] [“Nalline” test].) In applying this rule the trial court considered, in the absence of the jury, the testimony of Drs. 1966(See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ] [“truth serum”] ; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [ 312 P.2d 665 ] [“lie detector” test] ; cf. People v. Williams (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 860-862 [ 331 P.2d 251 ] [“Nalline” test].) In applying this rule the trial court considered, in the absence of the jury, the testimony of Drs. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1966(See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ] [“truth serum”] ; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [ 312 P.2d 665 ] [“lie detector” test] ; cf. People v. Williams (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 860-862 [ 331 P.2d 251 ] [“Nalline” test].) In applying this rule the trial court considered, in the absence of the jury, the testimony of Drs. 1966(See, e.g., People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 653 [ 343 P.2d 577 ] [“truth serum”] ; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 752 [ 312 P.2d 665 ] [“lie detector” test] ; cf. People v. Williams (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d Supp. 858, 860-862 [ 331 P.2d 251 ] [“Nalline” test].) In applying this rule the trial court considered, in the absence of the jury, the testimony of Drs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California
green
2 sentences2026Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ (Italics added.)” (Kelly, at p. 30.) In Sargon, the California Supreme Court further explained: “under Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion te 2026Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ (Italics added.)” (Kelly, at p. 30.) In Sargon, the California Supreme Court further explained: “under Evidence Code sections 801, subdivision (b), and 802, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to exclude expert opinion te | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1997(See, e.g., People v. Jones[, supra,] 52 Cal.2d [at p.] 653 . . . [‘truth serum’]; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737 , 752 . . . [Tie detector’ test] . . . .)” (Huntingdon v. Crowley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at pp. 653-654.) Fourteen years after Jones wás decided, an appellate court rejected the reliability of sodium amytal interviews in People v. Johnson (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 988 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 118 ], where a videotape of the defendant’s sodium amytal interview had been admitted over his objection. 1997(See, e.g., People v. Jones[, supra,] 52 Cal.2d [at p.] 653 . . . [‘truth serum’]; People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737 , 752 . . . [Tie detector’ test] . . . .)” (Huntingdon v. Crowley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at pp. 653-654.) Fourteen years after Jones wás decided, an appellate court rejected the reliability of sodium amytal interviews in People v. Johnson (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 988 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 118 ], where a videotape of the defendant’s sodium amytal interview had been admitted over his objection. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Shirley
red
1 sentence1987Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” (People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, 30 , quoting Frye v. United States, supra, 293 F. 1013, 1014 .) “It is the proponent of [the expert] testimony, of course, who has the burden of making the necessary showing of comp | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Orville E. Stifel, II
green
1 sentence1984Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (See also United States v. Distler (6th Cir. 1981) 671 F.2d 954, 961 ; United States v. Stifel (6th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 431, 438 , cert. den., 401 U.S. 994 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1232 ].) II The Jury Instructions Rega | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Stifel v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (See also United States v. Distler (6th Cir. 1981) 671 F.2d 954, 961 ; United States v. Stifel (6th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 431, 438 , cert. den., 401 U.S. 994 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1232 ].) II The Jury Instructions Rega 1984Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (See also United States v. Distler (6th Cir. 1981) 671 F.2d 954, 961 ; United States v. Stifel (6th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 431, 438 , cert. den., 401 U.S. 994 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1232 ].) II The Jury Instructions Rega | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Donald E. Distler
green
1 sentence1984Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (See also United States v. Distler (6th Cir. 1981) 671 F.2d 954, 961 ; United States v. Stifel (6th Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 431, 438 , cert. den., 401 U.S. 994 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 531 , 91 S.Ct. 1232 ].) II The Jury Instructions Rega | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Slone
green
1 sentence1979But there is no requirement in our law that the admissibility of scientific-test evidence must be predicated on a 100 percent degree of accuracy.” (People v. Slone (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 611 .625.) “When a statute, although new in form, re-enacts an older statute without substantial change, even though it repeals the older statute, the new statute is but a continuation of the old. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Zeiger
green
1 sentence1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Aragon
green
2 sentences1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Schiers
green
2 sentences1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 1975Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Italics added.) 2 Also see People v. Schiers, 19 Cal.App.3d 102 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 330 ] and People v. Aragon, 154 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 316 P.2d 370 ]. 3 In 1966, our Supreme Court, in Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647, 653-65 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. McNichol
green
2 sentences1957This court, through Presiding Justice White, in People v. Villegas, 29 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 85 P.2d 480 ], affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a psychologist’s testimony, which would have shown, according to the witness, that the defendant was without sufficient force to “resist the impulse of this other boy to take him out on these robberies.” A psychologist was permitted to testify in People v. McNichol, 100 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 224 P.2d 21 ], without objection apparently, in a check forgery case, that one who had consumed a specified amount of whiskey and beer would not have the conscious intent 1957This court, through Presiding Justice White, in People v. Villegas, 29 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 85 P.2d 480 ], affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a psychologist’s testimony, which would have shown, according to the witness, that the defendant was without sufficient force to “resist the impulse of this other boy to take him out on these robberies.” A psychologist was permitted to testify in People v. McNichol, 100 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 224 P.2d 21 ], without objection apparently, in a check forgery case, that one who had consumed a specified amount of whiskey and beer would not have the conscious intent | 1 | 1957–1957 |
People v. Villegas
green
2 sentences1957This court, through Presiding Justice White, in People v. Villegas, 29 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 85 P.2d 480 ], affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a psychologist’s testimony, which would have shown, according to the witness, that the defendant was without sufficient force to “resist the impulse of this other boy to take him out on these robberies.” A psychologist was permitted to testify in People v. McNichol, 100 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 224 P.2d 21 ], without objection apparently, in a check forgery case, that one who had consumed a specified amount of whiskey and beer would not have the conscious intent 1957This court, through Presiding Justice White, in People v. Villegas, 29 Cal.App.2d 658 [ 85 P.2d 480 ], affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a psychologist’s testimony, which would have shown, according to the witness, that the defendant was without sufficient force to “resist the impulse of this other boy to take him out on these robberies.” A psychologist was permitted to testify in People v. McNichol, 100 Cal.App.2d 554 [ 224 P.2d 21 ], without objection apparently, in a check forgery case, that one who had consumed a specified amount of whiskey and beer would not have the conscious intent | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.
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.