State v. Andretta

How courts have described this case

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

• compelling defendant to give blood, hair and saliva samples does not violate rights against self-incrimination
• regardless of its accuracy in an individual case, voice print not shown to be scientifically acceptable and therefore inadmissible in evidence
• regardless of its accuracy in an individual case, voice print not shown to be scientifically acceptable and therefore inadmissible in evidence
• defendant may be compelled to speak for voice print test
• 5 Justices + 2 judges temporarily assigned
• 5 Justices + 2 judges temporarily assigned

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).