DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bloom, 516 N.W.2d 159.

29 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Rashad Devon Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Dixon 822 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Minnesota courts have held that experts in various fields may offer opinion testimony “to a reasonable scientific certainty,” implicitly holding that the phrase does not imply “to the exclusion of all others.” (allowing a properly qualified expert to express an opinion “to a reasonable scientific certainty” that the appellant is the source of the DNA while not allowing the expert to say that a particular profile is unique); (concluding that it was not
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Hannon 703 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
    C. Product Rule Bailey argues that Knutson’s testimony concerning probability statistics was inadmissible because it referred to the “product rule” rather than the “interim ceiling method”
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
    In Roman Nose’s initial arguments to this court, he asserted that this court recognized potential sources of error in computing '-62 (Minn.1994), but, nevertheless, upheld use of the “interim ceiling method” recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) because it “is a conservative method of statistical calculation designed to favor the defendant.” Because the DNA probability statistics were calculated under the product rule and not t
  • State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
    Appellant next argues that the testimony of the BCA expert was not based on the “interim ceiling method” recommended by the National Research Council and approved by’
  • State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Kromah 657 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Schneider 597 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
    (noting that some courts approve of such conclusive testimony in the fingerprint context).
  • State v. Johnson 922 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Boles 905 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See Alt, d at 53 (noting that combined statistical probability of a match at all loci was not admissible); (removing former limitation on combined statistical probability evidence).
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Perez 516 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Bauer 516 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Bauer 516 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Perez 516 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1994