State v. Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[a] pretrial identification confrontation may be ‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification’ that it denies an accused due-process of law. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-02 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206 (1967). Pretrial confrontations must be scrutinized for their fairness. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 227 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1932 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1157 (1967). “Pretrial identification procedures may so taint in-court identification testimony as to render such testimony inadmissible on due-process grounds. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 383 , 88 S.Ct. 967, 970 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1252 (1968); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272 , 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1956 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1186 (1967). For such identification procedure to amount to a due-process denial depends upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding it. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. at 385-86 , 88 S.Ct. at 972 , 19 L.Ed.2d at 1254 ; State v. Thornley, 113 R.I. 189, 192 , 319 A.2d 94, 96 (1974); State v. Ouimette, 110 R.I. 747, 768 , 298 A.2d 124, 137 (1972).” Id. 405 A.2d at 1214 .”

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