Supreme Court of South Carolina· 4/5/1999

State v. Council

Citations

515 S.E.2d 508
335 S.C. 1
1999 S.C. LEXIS 76

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that although Mitochondrial DNA analysis was new it \[had] been subjected to peer review and many articles [had] been published about this technology\
holding that a reference to a fingerprint card on file at the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division was too vague to constitute prejudice
holding the admissibility of polygraph tests must be analyzed under Rules 702 and 403, SCRE.
recognizing the admission of evidence is reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard
noting that the Sixth Amendment right attaches only post-indictment, at least in the questioning/statement setting
recognizing and taking in to consideration the fact that the science underlying DNA analysis evidence has been generally accepted in the scientific community in determining whether such evidence was reliable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burnett, Toal, Moore, Waller, Finney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Council

17 other CourtListener records share this case 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.