Commonwealth v. Potcher

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the test “focus[ed] on the exact scientific findings that are central to the legal arguments the parties have advanced”
• finding that an expert’s testimony that he did not consider the materials requested is not dispositive and further emphasizing that “the courts should order disclosure when there is at least an ambiguity as to whether the materials informed the expert’s opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).