CHIN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Flanagan v. State, 586 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
  …n was in keeping with the following observations made in the court’s earlier opinion in People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.Sd 18, 51-54, 723 P. 2d 1354, 1374-75, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 264, stay denied, 458 U.S. 1125, 103 S.Ct. 13, 73 L.Ed.2d 1400, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982):21 Nor are those techniques necessarily limited to manipulation of physical evidence: we do not doubt that if testimony based on a new scientific process operating on purely psychological evidence were to be of…
• Hawthorne v. State, 470 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
  …So. 2d at 18. In so concluding, the court drew upon certain language in opinions from jurisdictions that apply Frye (State v. Mack, 292 N.W. 2d 764 (Minn.1980); People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 641 P. 2d 775 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982); State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180, 644 P. 2d 1266 (1982); People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W. 2d 743 (1982)), yet Bundy II never addressed the question of whether Frye’s applicabili…
• Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987)
  …2d 170, 177 (1981); State v. Martin, 101 Wash. 2d 713, 684 P. 2d 651 (1984). See State v. Ture, 353 N. W. 2d 502, 513-514 (Minn. 1984). The Arkansas court relied on a California case, People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P. 2d 1354, cert. denied, 459 U. S. 860 (1982), for much of its reasoning as to the unreliability of hypnosis. 288 Ark., at 575-578, 708 S. W. 2d, at 83-84. But while the California court adopted a far stricter general rule — barring entirely testimony by any witness who has been hypnotiz…