State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

138 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]ithout more, the mere exposure of the accused to a witness in the suggestive setting of a criminal trial does not amount to the sort of impermissible confrontation with which the due process clause is concerned.” (Citations omitted.) Middletown v. United States, 401 A.2d 109, 132 (D.C.App.1979). “We know of no authority which would prohibit, as unduly suggestive, an exclusively in-court identification.” State v. Nelson, ... [ 4 Conn.App. 514 ] 495 A.2d 298 [ (1985) (citation omitted) ]. The defendant’s protection against the obvious suggestiveness in any courtroom identification confrontation is his right to cross-examination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hogan v. State

2. “of no authority which would prohibit, as unduly suggestive, an exclusively in-court identification.... The defendant's protection against the obvious suggestiveness in any courtroom confrontation is his right to cross-examination.... The innate weakness in any in-court testimonial identification is grounds for assailing its weight rather than its admissibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Conn. App. 541 - Bennett v. Commissioner of Correction

3. “an in-court testimonial identification need be excluded, as violative of due process, only when it is tainted by an out-of-court identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Conn. App. 138 - State v. Torres