172 Ohio App. 3d 646 - State v. Williams’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. “Courts employ a two-step process to determine the admissibility of identification testimony. The first step focuses only upon whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. Biggers places show-ups (or cold stands) in this category. See, e.g., State v. Gross , 97 Ohio St.3d 121 , 2002-Ohio-5524 , 776 N.E.2d 1061 ; State v. Broom (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 533 N.E.2d 682 . *Page 9 {¶ 18} The second part of the inquiry then focuses upon five factors necessary to assess the reliability of the identification, despite the taint of the show-up. These five factors are: (1) the witness's opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime; (2) the witness's degree of attention at the time of the crime; (3) the accuracy of the witness's description of the defendant prior to the identification; (4) the witness's level of certainty when identifying the defendant at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time elapsed between the crime and the confrontation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fair, 89653 (3-6-2008)

2. “will not result in a suppression of the identification unless the procedure impacts the reliability of the identification itself. Id. (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fair, 89653 (3-6-2008)