Anson Flowline Equipment, Inc. v. Harvey Specialty & Supply Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a new trial was warranted and stating that the defendant was entitled to have DNA testing done on vaginal swabs taken from the victim
• noting that reviewing court will give deference to finding of trial court, on claim of possible Brady violation because of “difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of nondisclosure in the course of a lengthy trial with many witnesses and exhibits” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “[i]t is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor intentionally to avoid pursuit of evidence because . . . it will damage the prosecution’s case or aid the accused”
• lack of DNA match between defendant and stains on victim's clothing was exculpatory when evidence indicated that stains were left at or near time of murder
• where court rejects expert testimony, there must be some basis to support the conclusion that evidence of the expert witness was unworthy of belief
• “[b]lood typing tests, at least insofar as they exclude someone from sexual contact, are generally acknowledged to be absolutely reliable when the sample is not contaminated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).