Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 4/6/2020

Com. v. Hopkins, G.

Citations

  • 231 A.3d 855
  • 2020 Pa. Super. 88

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that a claim of ineffective assistance for failing to challenge expert testimony had arguable merit because the methodology employed by expert “was ‘novel’ science not generally accepted in the field of forensic pathology”
  • “Courts accept a variety of sources as evidence that the expert’s methodology is generally accepted, including judicial opinions, scientific publications, studies, and statistics, expert testimony, or a combination of the above.”
  • “Instead, the trial court improperly determined that Dr. Levin’s opinions were the result of no identifiable generally accepted methodology and thereafter conducted its own analysis and formulated its own opinions. This is a clear abuse of discretion….”
  • scientific methodology was needed to determine the timing of when sperm was deposited at a crime scene; “[i]f -6- J-S01035-25 common sense alone were permissible, no need would exist for expert testimony; a lay witness could testify instead”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stabile

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Com. v. Hopkins, G.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.