State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 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.” Syl. pt. 3, State v. Casdorph, 159 W.Va. 909 , 230 S.E.2d 476 (1976).’ Syllabus Point 2, State v. Gravely, 171 W.Va. 428 , 299 S.E.2d 375 (1982).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 200 W. Va. 661 - State v. Taylor · 191 W. Va. 727 - State v. Franklin