Daniel Lee Flores v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the hair comparison expert’s “acknowledgements that microscopic hair comparisons were ‘not like a fingerprint’ and ‘not a basis for absolute personal identification’ did little to detract from his seemingly impressive real life forensic experience in thousands of cases”
• “This expert testimony bolstered the identification of appellant as the perpetrator, which was the central issue in dispute at trial.”
• “As this hearsay testimony was received without objection, it could be ‘properly considered by the trier of fact and given its full probative value.’” (quoting Eldridge v. United States, 492 A.2d 879, 883 (D.C. 1985))
• “The prosecutor knew what he was doing when . . . he urged the jurors to credit the eyewitness identifications because it would have been so ‘remarkable’ for [the hair expert’s] finding of a match to be wrong.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).