Skip to main content

DISHAROON v. State

Citations

  • 727 S.E.2d 465
  • 291 Ga. 45

How courts have described this case

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

  • signaling that the holding in Bullcoming was not “so broad as to make it applicable to a case in which the person testifying is a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”
  • discussing Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 652 (131 SCt 2705, 180 LE2d 610) (2011), and holding that expert with significant personal connection to forensic test could testify in lieu of scientist who actually conducted it
  • “ ‘[Surrogate testimony’ of the ‘scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification’ violates the Confrontation Clause.”
  • testifying technician performed all but one step of DNA analysis
  • “‘Surrogate testimony’ of a ‘scientist who did not sign a certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification violates the Confrontation Clause.’” (citation omitted); Leger v. State, 291 Ga. 584, 592-593 (5) (732 SE2d 53) (2012) (accord

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Melton, Nahmias

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.