Skip to main content

State v. Bloom

Citations

  • 516 N.W.2d 159
  • 1994 Minn. LEXIS 290
  • 1994 WL 169980

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing problems with unmodified product rule and finding product-rule calculation modified by ceiling principle to be admissible
  • recognizing that the \admission of the random match probability figure will confuse jurors\
  • recognizing that the \admission of the random match probability figure will confuse jurors\
  • stating \we will not hesitate to award a new trial . . . if . . . DNA identification evidence was presented in a misleading or improper way\
  • stating \we will not hesitate to award a new trial . . . if . . . DNA identification evidence was presented in a misleading or improper way\
  • expressly sanctioning the use of “reasonable scientific certainty” in the context of DNA evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keith, Gardebring, Tomljanovich, Coyne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 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.