unmodified product rule in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Sotogreen cal · 1999 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2020 2 sentences 2020Barney, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at pp. 814–816.)5 Soto determined concerns about population substructuring had been laid to rest by later scientific developments and held that use of the unmodified product rule is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community as a means of expressing the significance of a DNA match. ( Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 515–516.) Most recently, Nelson held that the admissibility of evidence based on the product rule in a cold hit case “is a question of relevance, not scientific acceptance,” thus obviating the need for a Kelly inquiry. 2007(People v. Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 538 [“[s]everal developments . . . indicate that the controversy over population substructuring and use of the unmodified product rule has dissipated”].) Accordingly, in the present case the experts in fact did use a conservative method compared with the less conservative “unmodified product rule.” (Ibid.; see also id. at p. 541.) 23 We find support for our conclusion in decisions from other jurisdictions.	3	4
People v. Leahygreen cal · 1994 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–2001 2 sentences 2001Forensic Sci. at pp. 42-43.) “ ‘[Considerations of judicial economy’ . . . permit a court to scrutinize ‘published writings in scholarly treatises and journals’ in lieu of live testimony.” (Leahy, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , quoting People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 55-56 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d 1354 ].) Finally, as our Supreme Court observed with respect to RFLP (Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 540 ), we note that several other jurisdictions have approved the admissibility of statistical calculations applying the unmodified product rule to PCR-based evidence. 1999(People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 612 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ].) 4 In Venegas , the issue was not reached because the trial court had rejected admissibility of statistical evidence calculated under the unmodified product rule. ( 18 Cal.4th at p. 94 .) 5 Population substructuring is thought to occur when a certain subsection of the population, for example, a racial or ethnic group, mates predominantly within that same subsection, resulting in thé interrelation of certain genetic traits. 6 The material in this part (pp. 519-526) has been adopted from our opinion in Venegas, sup	2	2
United States v. Gainesgreen flsd · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	1
People v. Shirleygreen cal · 1982 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Forensic Sci. at pp. 42-43.) “ ‘[Considerations of judicial economy’ . . . permit a court to scrutinize ‘published writings in scholarly treatises and journals’ in lieu of live testimony.” (Leahy, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , quoting People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 55-56 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d 1354 ].) Finally, as our Supreme Court observed with respect to RFLP (Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 540 ), we note that several other jurisdictions have approved the admissibility of statistical calculations applying the unmodified product rule to PCR-based evidence. 2001Forensic Sci. at pp. 42-43.) “ ‘[Considerations of judicial economy’ . . . permit a court to scrutinize ‘published writings in scholarly treatises and journals’ in lieu of live testimony.” (Leahy, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 611 , quoting People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 55-56 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d 1354 ].) Finally, as our Supreme Court observed with respect to RFLP (Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 540 ), we note that several other jurisdictions have approved the admissibility of statistical calculations applying the unmodified product rule to PCR-based evidence.	1	1
Lindsey v. Peoplegreen colo · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999(Ibid.; see also Lindsey v. People (Colo. 1995) 892 P.2d 281, 294 [citing FBI Rep.]; State v. Copeland (1996) 130 Wn.2d 244 [ 922 P.2d 1304 , 1319].) Second, in 1994, Dr. Eric Lander, a former leading opponent of the unmodified product rule, co-authored an article in which he declared that the “DNA fingerprinting wars are over.” (See Lander & Budowle, DNA Fingerprinting Dispute Laid to Rest (Oct. 27, 1994) 371 Nature 735, 735 (Lander and Budowle article).) In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report “failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ul 1999(Ibid.; see also Lindsey v. People (Colo. 1995) 892 P.2d 281, 294 [citing FBI Rep.]; State v. Copeland (1996) 130 Wn.2d 244 [ 922 P.2d 1304 , 1319].) Second, in 1994, Dr. Eric Lander, a former leading opponent of the unmodified product rule, co-authored an article in which he declared that the “DNA fingerprinting wars are over.” (See Lander & Budowle, DNA Fingerprinting Dispute Laid to Rest (Oct. 27, 1994) 371 Nature 735, 735 (Lander and Budowle article).) In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report “failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ul	1	1
State v. Copelandgreen wash · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999(Ibid.; see also Lindsey v. People (Colo. 1995) 892 P.2d 281, 294 [citing FBI Rep.]; State v. Copeland (1996) 130 Wn.2d 244 [ 922 P.2d 1304 , 1319].) Second, in 1994, Dr. Eric Lander, a former leading opponent of the unmodified product rule, co-authored an article in which he declared that the “DNA fingerprinting wars are over.” (See Lander & Budowle, DNA Fingerprinting Dispute Laid to Rest (Oct. 27, 1994) 371 Nature 735, 735 (Lander and Budowle article).) In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report “failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ul 1999(Ibid.; see also Lindsey v. People (Colo. 1995) 892 P.2d 281, 294 [citing FBI Rep.]; State v. Copeland (1996) 130 Wn.2d 244 [ 922 P.2d 1304 , 1319].) Second, in 1994, Dr. Eric Lander, a former leading opponent of the unmodified product rule, co-authored an article in which he declared that the “DNA fingerprinting wars are over.” (See Lander & Budowle, DNA Fingerprinting Dispute Laid to Rest (Oct. 27, 1994) 371 Nature 735, 735 (Lander and Budowle article).) In the article, the authors state that the 1992 NRC Report “failed to state clearly enough that the ceiling principle was intended as an ul	1	1
People v. Samgreen cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
People v. Wallacegreen calctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
People v. Taylorgreen calctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (30)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Barney green calctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2020Barney, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at pp. 814–816.)5 Soto determined concerns about population substructuring had been laid to rest by later scientific developments and held that use of the unmodified product rule is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community as a means of expressing the significance of a DNA match. ( Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 515–516.) Most recently, Nelson held that the admissibility of evidence based on the product rule in a cold hit case “is a question of relevance, not scientific acceptance,” thus obviating the need for a Kelly inquiry. 1999As will be explained, although the court in People v. Barney (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 798 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 ] (Barney) held that general scientific acceptance of the unmodified product rule as a means of calculating DNA *516 match probabilities was precluded by a then ongoing dispute among population geneticists over whether “population substructuring” 5 fatally undermines the reliability of those calculations, that dispute has been eclipsed by subsequent important scientific developments, most notably the publication in 1996 of a completely new report by the NRC, entitled The Evaluation of For	4	1998–2020
People v. Venegas green cal · 1998 2 sentences 2002In Venegas , the court deemed accepted the modified ceiling approach to determining the statistical significance of a match. ( People v. Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 84-90, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 262 , 954 P.2d 525 .) Then, in Soto, the court separately examined and deemed accepted the unmodified product rule approach. ( People v. Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 518-519, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 981 P.2d 958 .) Both procedures are approaches to the same general purposethe statistical probability calculationbut they address different theoretical concerns and can produce significantly different result 2002In Venegas , the court deemed accepted the modified ceiling approach to determining the statistical significance of a match. ( People v. Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 84-90, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 262 , 954 P.2d 525 .) Then, in Soto, the court separately examined and deemed accepted the unmodified product rule approach. ( People v. Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 518-519, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 981 P.2d 958 .) Both procedures are approaches to the same general purposethe statistical probability calculationbut they address different theoretical concerns and can produce significantly different result	3	1999–2002
People v. Axell green calctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2001After a detailed summary of expert testimony presented at two Kelly hearings and at trial, Soto discussed the decision in People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ], which confirmed general scientific acceptance of the product rule, and this court’s 1992 decision in Barney, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th 798 , which concluded subsequent publications had undermined the rule’s acceptance. 1999(Axell, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 868 .) On the issue of population substructuring, the court concluded the testimony of the prosecution experts had overcome defense fears about the lack of statistical independence essential to the proper application of the unmodified product rule.	2	1999–2001
People v. Nelson green cal · 2008 2 sentences 2020(Nelson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1260 .) We further held that the product rule provides relevant and admissible evidence in cold hit cases. 2020(Nelson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1261 ; see Soto, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 515–516.) An alternative proposal begins with the rarity of the profile in the general population, the statistic generated by the product rule, then multiplies that number by the number of profiles in the database searched.	1	2020–2020
People v. Reeves green calctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2011(People v. Reeves, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 32 .) As one commentator has noted, “Of all the technological and scientific issues in this debate, the most difficult for the courts, and those that have generated the most disagreement within the scientific community, involve statistics.	1	2011–2011
United States v. Arnold Sherlock and Ronald Charley green ca9 · 1992 1 sentence 2007In U.S. v. Sherlock (9th Cir. 1989) 962 F.2d 1349 , for example, the court commented that the right to a public trial is not absolute, but on occasion “must give way ... to other interests essential to the fair administration of justice. [Citations.] HD Federal courts have recognized limitations on that right where a judge has excluded spectators during a witness’s testimony for a justifiable purpose,” noting cases that permit carefully tailored closure to protect witnesses from harassment and physical harm.	1	2007–2007
United States v. Lowe green mad · 1997 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Dishon green njsuperctappdiv · 1997 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
Commonwealth v. Rosier green mass · 1997 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Gore red wash · 2001 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Hoff green moctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
United States v. Shea green nhd · 1997 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Gore red wash · 2001 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
People v. Pope green illappct · 1996 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Jackson green neb · 1998 2 sentences 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
Smith v. State green ind · 1998 1 sentence 2001(See, e.g., State v. Gore (2001) 143 Wash.2d 288 [ 21 P.3d 262 ] [Washington; rejecting Mueller’s criticisms and approving product rule in PCR under Washington’s Frye test]; Smith v. State (Ind. 1998) 702 N.E.2d 668 [Indiana]; State v. Jackson (1998) 255 Neb. 68 [ 582 N.W.2d 317 [Nebraska]; People v. Pope (1996) 284 Ill.App.3d 695 [220 Ill.Dec 309, 672 N.E.2d 1321 ] [Illinois]; Com. v. Rosier (1997) 425 Mass. 807 [ 685 N.E.2d 739 [Massachusetts]; State v. Dishon (1997) 297 N.J.Super. 254 [ 687 A.2d 1074 [New Jersey]; State v. Hoff (Mo.Ct.App. 1995) 904 S.W.2d 56 [Missouri]; see also U.S. v. Ga	1	2001–2001
State v. Morel green ri · 1996 1 sentence 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999
State v. Weeks green mont · 1995	1	1999–1999
State v. Dinkins green sc · 1995	1	1999–1999
Armstead v. State green md · 1996 2 sentences 1999(See Chakraborty & Kidd article, supra, 254 Science at p. 1735, cited in Armstead v. State (1996) 342 Md. 38 [ 673 A.2d 221, 237 ]; see also Kaye, DNA Evidence, supra, 7 Harv. 1999(See Chakraborty & Kidd article, supra, 254 Science at p. 1735, cited in Armstead v. State (1996) 342 Md. 38 [ 673 A.2d 221, 237 ]; see also Kaye, DNA Evidence, supra, 7 Harv.	1	1999–1999
State v. Futrell green ncctapp · 1993	1	1999–1999
State v. Copeland green wash · 1996	1	1999–1999
State v. Marcus green njsuperctappdiv · 1996	1	1999–1999
People v. Miller green ill · 1996 2 sentences 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999
Commonwealth v. Blasioli green pa · 1998 2 sentences 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999
People v. Chandler green michctapp · 1995	1	1999–1999
Taylor v. State green oklacrimapp · 1995 1 sentence 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999
People v. Kelly red cal · 1976 2 sentences 1999Soto contends that the propriety of using the unmodified product rule to calculate these statistical probabilities is disputed within the scientific community, and therefore such statistical DNA evidence must be excluded from the courtroom under Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 . 1999Soto contends that the propriety of using the unmodified product rule to calculate these statistical probabilities is disputed within the scientific community, and therefore such statistical DNA evidence must be excluded from the courtroom under Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24 .	1	1999–1999
State v. Freeman green neb · 1997 2 sentences 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999
State v. Anderson green nm · 1994 2 sentences 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island 1999(See, e.g., Com. v. Blasioli (1998) 552 Pa. 149 [ 713 A.2d 1117 ] [Pennsylvania; Frye test]; State v. Freeman (1997) 253 Neb. 385 [ 571 N.W.2d 276 ] [Nebraska; Frye test]; Armstead v. State, supra, 673 A.2d 221 [Maryland; Frye test and statute authorizing admissibility of RFLP statistical evidence]; State v. Copeland, supra, 922 P.2d 1304 [Washington; Frye test]; People v. Miller (1996) 173 Ill.2d 167 [219 Ill.Dec 43, 670 N.E.2d 721 ] [Illinois; Frye test]; State v. Marcus (1996) 294 N.J.Super. 267 [ 683 A.2d 221 ] [New Jersey; Frye test]; State v. Morel (R.I. 1996) 676 A.2d 1347 [Rhode Island	1	1999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 210 (3) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check