Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/24/2001
State v. Pappas
Citations
- 256 Conn. 854
- 776 A.2d 1091
- 2001 Conn. LEXIS 284
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘a defen- dant may offer an opposing expert or, as the defendant here did, use cross-examination to critique the analy- sis and interpretation of mtDNA evidence’’
- dur- ing jury deliberations, jury sent note asking whether DNA from certain evidence was ‘‘a match to the [defen- dant’s] known DNA sample’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- ‘‘evidence . . . is properly excluded if its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value, even if it is otherwise admissible’’ (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding no error in admitting mtDNA evidence
- describing mtDNA and process of analyzing it
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-09-28· cited 92×
- State v. James G.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-04-13· cited 89×
- State v. MerriamSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-07-15· cited 88×
- State v. SorabellaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-02-07· cited 79×
- State v. MeehanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-05-28· cited 69×
- State v. Chasity WestSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-07-26· cited 64×
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 61×
- State v. BonnerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-02-24· cited 59×
- State v. KirschSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-05-06· cited 58×
- State v. GriffinUtah Supreme Court· 2016-07-27· cited 43×
- State v. BrochuSupreme Court of Vermont· 2008-03-07· cited 37×
- State v. ColonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-07-23· cited 33×
- Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-17· cited 31×
- Wagner v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-01-03· cited 29×
- State v. TraylorSupreme Court of Minnesota· 2003-02-24· cited 28×
- State v. BuddhuSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-24· cited 26×
- State v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-09-24· cited 23×
- Urich v. FishSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-08-27· cited 21×
- Vaughn v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 2007-06-04· cited 20×
- People v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2003-04-02· cited 20×
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 21,376×
- Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court· 1978-06-26· cited 8,679×
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court· 1997-12-15· cited 4,535×
- Frye v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1923-12-03· cited 4,204×
- United States v. Randolph JakobetzSecond Circuit· 1992-01-09· cited 280×
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- State v. SivriSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-08-23· cited 184×
- State v. CobbSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-12-07· cited 167×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 162×
- State v. CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-04-05· cited 157×
- Moore v. McNamaraSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 134×
- Choice v. GoordSupreme Court· 2000-10-02· cited 119×
- State v. DeMatteoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-04-20· cited 115×
- State v. AlvarezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-08-21· cited 95×
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-30· cited 89×
- State v. CopasSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-14· cited 84×
- State v. BerginSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-04-24· cited 83×
- State v. SaurisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-24· cited 81×
- State v. BrunoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-03-26· cited 78×
- State v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-27· cited 77×
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.