evidential force principle (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

evidential force principle in District of Columbia

5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Frye v. United Statesred
cadc · 1923 · cited in 5 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–2016
2 sentences

2016Somewhere 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. 5 Id. at 1014 .

1992Somewhere 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. 54 App.D.C. at 47 , 293 F. at 1014 .

15
People v. Axellgreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Although it is now forty years since James Watson of the United States and Francis Crick of Great Britain received the Nobel Prize for their pioneering work on the DNA molecule, see People v. Axell, 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 845 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 415 (1991), review denied, (1992), forensic use of DNA technologies is of comparatively recent vintage (but boundless potential).

1992Although it is now forty years since James Watson of the United States and Francis Crick of Great Britain received the Nobel Prize for their pioneering work on the DNA molecule, see People v. Axell, 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 845 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411, 415 (1991), review denied, (1992), forensic use of DNA technologies is of comparatively recent vintage (but boundless potential).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Dyas v. United States green
dc · 1977
1 sentence

2016Later, in Dyas, we expanded upon Frye and adopted a three-part test for determining whether to admit expert testimony: (1) the subject matter “must be so distinctively related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman”; (2) “the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth”; and (3) expert testimony is inadmissible if “the state of the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not permit a reason

12016–2016

Where else courts name it

PA 35 (1977–2023) IL 33 (1979–2007) CA 16 (1957–2026) NY 12 (1988–2018) FL 11 (1983–2013) AL 8 (1980–2012) MO 7 (1972–2000) MD 7 (1977–2018) TX 7 (1973–1998) CT 6 (1986–1995) WA 5 (1984–2013) AZ 5 (1962–2006) DC 5 (1979–2016) CO 4 (1981–1999) RI 3 (1985–1999) MS 3 (1994–1998) MA 3 (1978–1986) NJ 3 (1978–2020) AK 3 (1986–1997) LA 3 (1981–1995) WV 3 (1989–2002) MI 3 (1949–2014) NM 2 (1993–1993) GA 2 (1981–2025) MN 2 (1971–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check