State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he factors to be considered [in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification] include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witnesses] degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Arizona v. Sergio Arturo Rojo-Valenzuela · State of Arizona v. David J. Waller

2. ““Morgan requires that defendants be afforded an opportunity during voir dire to identify, and to strike for cause, prospective jurors who would automatically impose the death penalty once guilt is found. See [State v.] Glassel, 211 Ariz. [33] 45-46, 116 P.3d [1193] 1205-06 [ (2005) ]. Morgan does not, however, entitle defendants to ask prospective jurors to identify circumstances they would find mitigating or to answer open-ended questions about their views on mitigation.””

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

3. “The presence of an irreconcilable conflict or a completely fractured relationship between counsel and the accused ordinarily requires the appointment of new counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson