blood-spatter analysis has sufficient scientific reliability to aid jury: “[S]uch observations are largely based on common sense, and in fact, lie close to the ken of an average layman.”
How later courts described this case
- blood-spatter analysis has sufficient scientific reliability to aid jury: “[S]uch observations are largely based on common sense, and in fact, lie close to the ken of an average layman.”
- “Obviously the complexity of the subject matter will influence the foundational showing of reliability.”
- complex cases may benefit from input from scientific community
- blood-spatter analysis has sufficient scientific reliability to aid jury: “[S]uch observations are largely *460 based on common sense, and in fact, lie close to the ken of an average layman.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Jeffrey Linn Hall v. State of Iowa and Attorney General of Iowa, 705 F.2d 283 (1983)
We respectfully disagree with the Iowa Supreme Court which was “not persuaded that anything more than differing interpretations of the agreement occurred here.” 297 N.W.2d at 90.
The opinion
LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
I believe the admission of blood dynamics evidence was subject to the infirmities listed in Justice McCormick’s special concurrence, but I am unable to agree that the error is cured by taking judicial notice of “certain principles of physics.”
I therefore dissent from the result reached by the majority.