7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Commander.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Commander Anchor | green | “because the anecdotal history is an essential component of any autopsy, we find testimony concerning findings based on this information falls within the umbrella of the expert's specialized knowledge.” | 3 |
| 2 | State v. Commander | green | “of the many courts in other jurisdictions that have considered where to draw the line in these cases, we tend to agree with those courts that have found that expert testimony addressing the state of mind or guilt of the accused is inadmissible.” | 3 |
| 3 | State of Iowa v. Leon Kooima | green | “we do not decide this case under the iowa constitution because we resolve this issue based upon the fourth amendment of the united states constitution.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Tucker | green | “testified that medical examiners regularly rely upon investigative information when forming their opinions. this practice is also supported in case law throughout the united states that examines this issue.” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Eberle | green | “moreover, the expert's statement that the infant died from 'homicidal' suffocation improperly states a conclusion regarding defendant's intent.” | 3 |
| 6 | State v. Chambers | green | “elieving the first confession admissible, the strong probability is that concluded a repetition could make the case no worse, and the last confession was made under the influence of the preceding one.” | 3 |
| 7 | State v. Dao Xiong | green | “n . . . bradford, we concluded that no error was committed when the district court admitted a medical examiner's expert testimony that, based on his autopsy of the victim's body, the victim's manner of death was homicide rather than suicide.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.