23 Ariz. App. 358 - State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f the trial court finds that the pretrial identification was not unduly suggestive, it need not do any of the following: (a) [determine whether an in-court identification was tainted; (b) instruct that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the in-court identification was independent; and (e) instruct that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the pretrial identification was fair.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Osorio · State v. Leyvas

2. “First, if at the trial the proposed in-court identification is challenged, the trial judge must immediately hold a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine from clear and convincing evidence whether it contained unduly suggestive circumstances. In this the burden is on the prosecution to establish from all the circumstances surrounding the pretrial identification that it was not such as to be unduly suggestive. Second, if the trial judge concludes that the circumstances of the pretrial identification were unduly suggestive or that the prosecution has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that they were not, then it is the prosecution's burden to satisfy the trial judge from clear and convincing evidence that the proposed in-court identification is not tainted by the prior identification. Third, if requested, the court must instruct the jury that before returning a verdict of guilty it must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the in-court identification was independent of the previous pretrial identification or if not derived from an independent source, it must find from other evidence in the case that the defendant is the guilty person beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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

3. “[A]fter the court finds that the pretrial identification was unduly suggestive and that by clear and convincing evidence the in-court identification was not tainted, then, if requested, the court must give [an instruction in accordance with Dessureault ].”

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