Case Citator › State v. Cauthron

State v. Cauthron

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
846 P.2d 502
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
30 of 30
Citing cases (total)
30
Treatment dates
1997
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Cauthron was overruled in part on whether an expert may identify a person's DNA profile as unique without comparing entire DNA molecules. All 30 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Washington courts continue to cite Cauthron's Frye and expert-testimony rules, including its requirement that DNA match testimony have statistical support.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

30 later cases cite State v. Cauthron; 30 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Cauthron?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Washington Supreme Court rejected Cauthron's understanding that identifying a DNA profile as unique required technology capable of comparing entire DNA molecules.

    State v. Buckner · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    At the time Cauthron was decided, we understood that this stage of technology would exist only when the entire DNA molecule could be compared to another entire DNA molecule. Id. It is now apparent that is not the case, as explained in the newest report of the National Research Council's Committee on DNA Forensic Science. ... Thus, we now conclude there should be no bar to an expert giving his or her expert opinion that, based upon an exceedingly small probability of a defendant's DNA profile matching that of another in a random human population, the profile is unique.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Cauthron and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace