State v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * [W]e hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253 (1968). We have stated: “ * * * It is clear following Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), that suggestiveness alone does not necessitate the exclusion of evidence. Rather, the question is whether under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ the identification was ‘reliable.’ * * * * * * “Neil v. Biggers supra, lists five factors to be evaluated in considering the reliability of identification: 1. The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, 2. the witness’ degree of attention, 3. the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, 4. the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and 5. the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” State v. Ware, 113 Ariz. 340, 343 , 554 P.2d 1267, 1270 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGill

2. “the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include 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 the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perea