10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Holtzergreen2 sentences2014See People v Holtzer, 255 Mich App 478, 491 ; 660 NW2d 405 (2003). 2014See People v Holtzer, 255 Mich App 478, 491 ; 660 NW2d 405 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Rodney E. Thomas v. Robert G. Borg Attorney General, Californiagreen2 sentences2012The fact that the absolute disparity test cannot distinguish between these radically different scenarios indicates that it does not measure defendants’ probabilistic injuries. [Commentary, Jury poker: A statistical analysis of the fair cross-section requirement, 8 Ohio St J Crim L 533, 545 (2011).] 71 See, e.g., Thomas, 159 F3d at 1151 (addressing an absolute disparity of approximately 5 percent); United States v Suttiswad, 696 F2d 645, 649 (CA 9, 1982) (addressing absolute disparities of 2.8 percent, 7.7 percent, and 4.7 percent); United States v Clifford, 640 F2d 150, 155 (CA 8, 1981) (addre 2012The fact that the absolute disparity test cannot distinguish between these radically different scenarios indicates that it does not measure defendants’ probabilistic injuries. [Commentary, Jury poker: A statistical analysis of the fair cross-section requirement, 8 Ohio St J Crim L 533, 545 (2011).] See, e.g., Thomas, 159 F3d at 1151 (addressing an absolute disparity of approximately 5 percent); United States v Suttiswad, 696 F2d 645, 649 (CA 9, 1982) (addressing absolute disparities of 2.8 percent, 7.7 percent, and 4.7 percent); United States v Clifford, 640 F2d 150, 155 (CA 8, 1981) (addressi | 1 | 1 |
Mu'Min v. Virginiagreen2 sentences1997“The right to a jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial ‘indifferent,’ jurors.” Irvin v Dowd, 366 US 717, 722 ; 81 S Ct 1639 ; 6 L Ed 2d 751 (1961). 6 Thus, the initial question is whether the effect of pretrial publicity on a relatively small jury pool, all of Gogebic County, like all of Gibson County in Irvin , was such “unrelenting prejudicial pretrial publicity [that] the entire community will be presumed both exposed to the publicity and prejudiced by it, entitling the defendant to a change of venue.” Mu’Min v Virginia, 500 US 415, 442, n 3 ; 1 1997“The right to a jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial ‘indifferent,’ jurors.” Irvin v Dowd, 366 US 717, 722 ; 81 S Ct 1639 ; 6 L Ed 2d 751 (1961). 6 Thus, the initial question is whether the effect of pretrial publicity on a relatively small jury pool, all of Gogebic County, like all of Gibson County in Irvin , was such “unrelenting prejudicial pretrial publicity [that] the entire community will be presumed both exposed to the publicity and prejudiced by it, entitling the defendant to a change of venue.” Mu’Min v Virginia, 500 US 415, 442, n 3 ; 1 | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Barney, supra; Taylor, supra at 337, n 81. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1992Brown , p 33. 1992Brown , p 33. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pennellgreen2 sentences1992Curnin , pp 225-227; Caldwell , pp 289-290; State v Pennell, 584 A2d 513, 517-520 (Del Super, 1989). 1992Schwartz , pp 428-429; Pennell , pp 519-520. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences1992Schwartz , pp 428-429; Pennell , pp 519-520. 1992Schwartz , pp 428-429; Pennell , pp 519-520. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Adams
green
2 sentences2003Defendant contends that [People v] Adams [ 195 Mich App 267 ; 489 NW2d 192 (1992)] did not subject the statistical analysis portion of the testing to Davis/Frye and thus it was erroneously decided. 2003Defendant contends that [People v] Adams [ 195 Mich App 267 ; 489 NW2d 192 (1992)] did not subject the statistical analysis portion of the testing to Davis/Frye and thus it was erroneously decided. | 4 | 1995–2003 |
People v. Coy
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 294-303 . 2015This Court held that the evidence was inadmissible under MRE 702 because, without the statistical analysis, the serologist’s “testimony concerning the potential match between defendant’s DNA and the DNA contained in the mixed blood samples found on the knife blade and the doorknob was insufficient to assist the jury in determining whether defendant contributed DNA to the mixed sample.” Id. at 301 . | 2 | 2015–2023 |
People v. Coy
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 9- 10. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2012Smith, 463 Mich at 204 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Chandler
green
2 sentences2003Adams, supra at 279 ; People v Chandler, 211 Mich App 604, 611 ; 536 NW2d 799 (1995). 2003Adams, supra at 279 ; People v Chandler, 211 Mich App 604, 611 ; 536 NW2d 799 (1995). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Irvin v. Dowd
green
2 sentences1997“The right to a jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial ‘indifferent,’ jurors.” Irvin v Dowd, 366 US 717, 722 ; 81 S Ct 1639 ; 6 L Ed 2d 751 (1961). 6 Thus, the initial question is whether the effect of pretrial publicity on a relatively small jury pool, all of Gogebic County, like all of Gibson County in Irvin , was such “unrelenting prejudicial pretrial publicity [that] the entire community will be presumed both exposed to the publicity and prejudiced by it, entitling the defendant to a change of venue.” Mu’Min v Virginia, 500 US 415, 442, n 3 ; 1 1997“The right to a jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial ‘indifferent,’ jurors.” Irvin v Dowd, 366 US 717, 722 ; 81 S Ct 1639 ; 6 L Ed 2d 751 (1961). 6 Thus, the initial question is whether the effect of pretrial publicity on a relatively small jury pool, all of Gogebic County, like all of Gibson County in Irvin , was such “unrelenting prejudicial pretrial publicity [that] the entire community will be presumed both exposed to the publicity and prejudiced by it, entitling the defendant to a change of venue.” Mu’Min v Virginia, 500 US 415, 442, n 3 ; 1 | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.