165 W. Va. 540 - State v. Foddrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In determining whether an out-of-court identification of a defendant is so tainted as to require suppression of an in-court identification a court must look to the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the identification was reliable, even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive, with due regard given to such factors as 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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Curtis Joseph Kimble · State v. Morgan

2. ““In the determination of a claim that an accused was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel violative of Article III, Section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, courts should measure and compare the questioned counsel’s performance by whether he exhibited the normal and customary degree of skill possessed by attorneys who are reasonably knowledgeable of criminal law, except that proved counsel error which does not affect the outcome of the case, will be regarded as harmless error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 W. Va. 542 - State v. Mullins

3. “The right to a trial without unreasonable delay is basic in the administration of criminal justice and is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions. W.Va. Constitution, Article III, § 14; U.S. Constitution, Amendment VI. We have held that it is the duty of the prosecution to provide a trial without unreasonable delay rather than the duty of the accused to demand a speedy trial. State ex rel. Stines v. Locke, 159 W.Va. 292 , 220 S.E.2d 443 (1975) and State ex rel Farley v. Kramer, 153 W.Va. 159 , 169 S.E.2d 106 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 W. Va. 54 - State v. Foddrell