McGowan v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
109 F.3d 1168 · 1997
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Westbrook (1997), State v. Gonzalez (2011)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Neil v. Biggers · Rhode Island v. Innis · Picard v. Connor · Smith v. Hooey
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'police are not required [in arranging a photographic display of suspects] to conduct a search for identical twins in age, height, weight or facial features .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Stewart v. Duckworth, 93 F.3d 262 (7th Cir.1996), we recently reaffirmed the test we apply to a challenge to pretrial identification procedures: The constitutionality of a challenged pretrial identification procedure is analyzed in two steps. First, the court must determine whether the procedure was “unnecessarily suggestive.” Even if the procedure was “unnecessarily suggestive,” the identification may still be admissible if “under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). In analyzing the totality of the circumstances, courts consider “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” Id. 93 F.3d at 265. “Whether a pretrial identification procedure is unduly suggestive and whether a witness’s subsequent identification is nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances are two separate inquiries that should be approached sequentially[.]” United States v. Johnson, 859 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir.1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) rely on pertinent federal cases employing constitutional analysis; (2) rely on state cases applying constitutional analysis to a similar factual situation; (3) assert the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific constitutional right; or (4) allege a pattern of facts that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation. If none of the four factors is present and the state has not otherwise signaled its satisfaction with the presentment of the federal claim, then this court will not con sider the state courts to have had a fair opportunity to consider the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.