107 Conn. App. 666 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably State v. Marquez (2009), 190 Ohio App. 3d 35 - State v. Monford (2010)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Golding · Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States · State v. Williams · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Toti v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To determine whether a photographic array is unnecessarily suggestive, a reviewing court considers various factors, including, but not limited to: (1) the degree of likeness shared by the individuals pictured ... (2) the number of photographs included in the array ... (3) whether the suspect's photograph prominently was displayed or otherwise was highlighted in an impermissible manner ... (4) whether the eyewitness had been told that the array includes a photograph of a known suspect ... (5) whether the eyewitness had been presented with multiple arrays in which the photograph of one suspect recurred repeatedly ... and (6) whether a second eyewitness was present during the presentation of the array.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“bound by Supreme Court precedent and [is] unable to modify it .... [W]e are not at liberty to overrule or discard the decisions of our Supreme Court .... [I]t is not within our province to reevaluate or replace those decisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A double-blind photographic identification procedure is one in which the officer conducting [the procedure] has not been involved in the investigation and does not know who the target is.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.