United States v. Wade M. Havvard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, while uniform standards may not exist, “the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard”
• holding that, while uniform standards may not exist, \the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard\
• holding that, while uniform standards may not exist, `the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard'
• holding that a district court that recognized fingerprint analysis’s “100 years of successful use in criminal trials” did not err by ad- mitting fingerprint expert evidence
• holding that, while uniform standards may not exist, \the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard\
• holding that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary because “fingerprint analysis has been tested and proven to be a rehable science over decades of use for judicial purposes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).