Woodfield v. Rule

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that expert testimony describing results of luminal testing met section 2702 requirements; Frye not cited even though Court found it had never approved luminal testing
• finding that expert testimony describing results of luminal testing met section 2702 requirements; Frye not cited even though Court found it had never approved luminal testing
• incorporating a higher standard: no \substantial possibility\ any reasonable juror would have rested a verdict on improper interpretation of \anti-sympathy\ instruction given in the first stage and incorporated by reference into the second stage of a capital murder trial
• incorporating a higher standard: no “substantial possibility” any reasonable juror would have rested a verdict on improper interpretation of “anti-sympathy” instruction given in the first stage and incorporated by reference into the second stage of a capital murder trial
• death penalty supported by evidence that defendant armed himself with shotgun and shells before robbing grocery store with codefendant where three people were killed
• there, as here, cross-examination exposed. the hair expert's imprecise and unscientific conclusion that a person can be positively identified by hair

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).