Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Morris v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided December 7, 2011No. PD-0796-10Published
1Concurrence
COCHRAN, J.,
concurring in which JOHNSON, J., joined.
Given the ground for review that we granted in this case, I agree with the majority’s resolution. This is the ground that we granted:
The court of appeals erred in holding that purportedly expert testimony about “grooming” was admissible where there was no showing that the study of “grooming” was a legitimate field of expertise.
The only question that we need address is the legitimacy of a phenomenon known as “grooming” behavior by those who use a particular method to get a person to comply with what the groomer wants.1 This is *671not rocket…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Jacobellis v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Nenno v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
- United States v. Linette Perez, United States of America v. Juancho Alcantera, United States of America v. Edmundo BatoonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.