State v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

147 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The law places the burden upon the state to identify the defendant. The law does not require the defendant to prove he has been wrongly identified. In weighing the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony you first should determine whether any of the following factors existed and if so the extent to which they would affect accuracy of identification by an eyewitness. Factors you may consider are: 1. The opportunity the witness had to observe. This includes any physical condition which could affect the ability of the witness to observe, the length of the time of observation, and any limitations on observation like an obstruction or poor lighting. 2. The emotional state of the witness at the time including that which might be caused by the use of a weapon or a threat of violence. 3. Whether the witness had observed the defendants] on earlier occasions. 4. Whether a significant amount of time elapsed between the crime charged and any later identification. 5. Whether the witness ever failed to identify the defendants] or made any inconsistent identification. 6. The degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused. 7. Whether there are any other circumstances that may have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness identification.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Edwards · State v. Wheaton

2. ““If these five factors should be considered in determining the admissibility of the testimony, it would seem even more appropriate to require the jury to consider the same factors in weighing the credibility of the eyewitness identification testimony. Otherwise the jury might reasonably conclude that the admission of the evidence by the trial court vouched for its reliability. We think it clear that, in order to prevent potential injustice, some standards must be provided the jury so that the credibility of eyewitness identification testimony can be intelligently and fairly weighed.” (Emphasis added.) 230 Kan. at 397 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Edwards · State v. Willis

3. ““After considering these cases and the literature on the subject, we have concluded that requiring trial courts to admit this type of expert evidence is not the answer to the problem.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moore · State v. Coley