184 Md. App. 175 - Turner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(i) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (ii) the witness’ degree of attention; (iii) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (iv) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; [and] (v) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 228 Md. App. 451 - In Re D.M. · 199 Md. App. 436 - In Re Matthew S.

2. “[I]t is not a Due Process violation per se that an identification procedure is suggestive.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 648 - Small v. State · 196 Md. App. 146 - Wood v. State

3. “Whatever vitality the Wade-Gilbert-Stovall trilogy still retained after 1973 was by virtue of its third member, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). Unlike Wade and Gilbert, Stovall was grounded in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than in the right to counsel of the Sixth Amendment. In one sense, a due process claim under Stovall enjoyed much broader coverage than a right to counsel claim under Wade and Gilbert because a due process claim is not limited to post-indictment procedures and does not require that the procedure be considered a critical stage. On the other hand, whereas a Sixth Amendment violation results in virtually automatic exclusion of the identification, a due process violation only occasionally does so. Instead of exclusion, an arguable due process violation generally calls for a balancing of competing factors under a “totality of circumstances” approach, and this is, far more often than not, a weighing function for a jury rather than an exclusionary function for a judge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 Md. App. 1 - Smiley v. State · 240 Md. App. 119 - State v. Greene