State v. Romero’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]e have no reason to doubt that if defendant had raised these arguments before the trial court and submitted the current research in support of his request for a new standard for determining the admissibility of showup identification, a different record would have been made. The trial court would have received the evidence and made its decision, and the Appellate Division then would have had a full record to review. In that event, the arguments defendant now makes would be properly before us. In the absence of such a record, and in light of our consistent application of federal constitutional precedent in deciding the admissibility of identification evidence, we decline to adopt a new standard under our state constitution. [Ibid.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Adams

2. “United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 229 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) (alteration in original) (quoting PATRICK M. WALL, EYE-WITNESS IDENTIFICATION IN CRIMINAL CASES 26 (1965)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Allen

3. “it is fundamentally unfair for the police to unnecessarily employ a technique that maximizes the potential for error”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 402 N.J. Super. 62 - State v. Chen