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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reilly v. Dalygreen2 sentences2013In Reilly , the court held in part that “[t]he professors’ observations of cheating behavior by Reilly combined with the statistical analysis of the test results constitute[d] at least some evidence in support of the Committee’s conclusion that Reilly cheated on her final exam.” Id. 2013See Reilly, 666 N.E.2d at 446 (holding that “[t]he professors’ observations of cheating behavior by Reilly combined with the statistical analysis of the test results constitutes at least some evidence in support of the Committee’s conclusion that Reilly cheated on her final exam” and that “[bjecause the Committee’s determination is supported by the evidence, we cannot conclude that the decision to expel Reilly was arbitrary or capricious”). | 2 | 2 |
Wheat v. Stategreen2 sentences2017To the extent it attempts to quantify the veracity of a particular witness or provide a statistical test for truth telling in the courtroom, it is clearly unacceptable.” Id. at 275 (emphasis added). 2017To the extent it attempts to quantify the veracity of a particular witness or provide a statistical test for truth telling in the courtroom, it is clearly unacceptable.” Id. at 275 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Deloney v. Stategreen1 sentence2013He cites Deloney v. State, 938 N.E.2d 724, 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied, in which this Court held that DNA evidence that does not constitute a match or is not accompanied by statistical data regarding the probability of a defendant’s contribution to a mixed sample is not relevant and should not be admitted. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See id. (no foundational error in admitting probability calculation where they were based not on speculation, but upon accepted scientific tables reporting the frequency of each genetic marker in the Caucasian population in Indiana). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McGrew v. State
green
1 sentence2004When questioned with regard to the statistical error ratio for hair comparison as compared to the ratio for blood *741 or DNA typing, the analyst stated that "he was not aware of any statistics with regards to 'the probability of a hair sample belonging to someone else," due to the nature of hair comparison." Id. at 1291 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.