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.
13 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1983Other courts, after considering the reliability of hypnosis evidence under the general acceptance test propounded in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1983Other courts, after considering the reliability of hypnosis evidence under the general acceptance test propounded in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 1 | 2 |
Blackwell v. Wyethgreen2 sentences2013Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575, 591 , 971 A.2d 235, 245 (2009). 2013Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575, 591 , 971 A.2d 235, 245 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen2 sentences1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel 1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John W. Downinggreen1 sentence1986That court rejected the Frye test, saying it “suffers from serious flaws” and “has proved to be too malleable to provide the method for orderly and uniform decision-making envisioned by some of its proponents.” It observed that “in its pristine form the general acceptance standard reflects a conservative approach to the admissibility of scientific evidence that is at odds with the spirit, if not the precise language, of the Federal Rules of *180 Evidence.” Id. at 1237. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Nazarovitchgreen2 sentences1982See Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97 , 436 A.2d 170 (1981); State v. Conley, 6 Kan. 1982See Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97 , 436 A.2d 170 (1981); State v. Conley, 6 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Savage v. State
green
2 sentences2020Thus, according to the concurrence, “[t]he evolution of our Frye-Reed doctrine to both maintain the general acceptance test and include a check for an “analytical gap” has muddied our approach to expert testimony.” Id. at 186 . 2018Thus, “[t]he evolution of our Frye-Reed doctrine to both maintain the general acceptance test and include a check for an ‘analytical gap’ has muddied our approach to expert testimony.” Id. at 186 . | 3 | 2018–2020 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel 1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel | 3 | 1995–2016 |
Rochkind v. Stevenson
green
2 sentences2023“Daubert, by contrast, refocus[ed] the attention away from acceptance of a given methodology … and centers on the reliability of the methodology used to reach a particular result.” Rochkind, 471 Md. at 31 . 2023“Daubert, by contrast, refocus[ed] the attention away from acceptance of a given methodology … and centers on the reliability of the methodology used to reach a particular result.” Rochkind, 471 Md. at 31 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Goldstein v. State
green
2 sentences2009Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (DNA profiling evidence); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563, 566 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (laser speed device). 2009Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (DNA profiling evidence); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563, 566 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (laser speed device). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Armstead v. State
green
2 sentences2009Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (DNA profiling evidence); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563, 566 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (laser speed device). 2009Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54 , 673 A.2d 221 (1996) (DNA profiling evidence); Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563, 566 , 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (laser speed device). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Kelly
red
2 sentences1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel 1995The California court then opined that “testimony by police officers regarding the mere administra,lion of the test is insufficient to meet the general acceptance standard required by Kelly.” (People v. Kelly, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 , is the California equivalent of Maryland’s Reed v. State, supra, 283 Md. 374 , 391 A.2d 364 .) (As we shall hereafter take judicial notice of the reliability and acceptability in the relevant communities of HGN testing generally, the Leahy court’s (and the Williams court’s) holding that officers cannot generally establish the foundational scientific rel | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. MacK
green
2 sentences1983The court alluded to the statement by the trial court that hypnosis had met the test imposed by Frye and said, "Unlike the courts in Mena, supra, and Mack, supra, the court below did not demand, as a precondition of admissibility, that hypnosis be generally accepted as a means of reviving truthful or historically accurate recall. 1983The court alluded to the statement by the trial court that hypnosis had met the test imposed by Frye and said, "Unlike the courts in Mena, supra, and Mack, supra, the court below did not demand, as a precondition of admissibility, that hypnosis be generally accepted as a means of reviving truthful or historically accurate recall. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Hurd
green
2 sentences1983But we believe that the policy reasons embodied in the general acceptance standard are germane to hypnotically refreshed testimony as well.” Id. 1983But we believe that the policy reasons embodied in the general acceptance standard are germane to hypnotically refreshed testimony as well." Id. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Conley
green
1 sentence1982See Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97 , 436 A.2d 170 (1981); State v. Conley, 6 Kan. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.