Skip to main content

Jordan v. State

Citations

  • 928 S.W.2d 550
  • 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 80
  • 1996 WL 313228

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that failure of expert on eyewitness identification to take into account certain facts is matter of weight and credibility, not admissibility
  • explaining that “this connection is not so much a matter of proof, however, as a matter of application”
  • concluding testimony must be specifically tied to the facts of the case and not simply an academic discussion on a field of study
  • noting that it was a matter of application not a matter of proof
  • noting that the facts upon which an expert testimony is based do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the expert may assume the truth of the facts in order to give her testimony
  • noting that the facts upon which an expert testimony is based do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the expert may assume the truth of the facts in order to give her testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keller, Maloney, McCORMICK, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

204 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 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.