24 Ariz. App. 7 - State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
September 2003
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 54 Cal. 2d 621 - People v. Gould · State v. Moore · State v. Kevil · 9 Ariz. App. 253 - State v. Cumbo · State v. Durham
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admissible, not only to corroborate an identification made at the trial [citations omitted], but as independent evidence of identity. Unlike other testimony that cannot be corroborated by proof of prior consistent statements unless it is first impeached [citations omitted], evidence of an extrajudicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testi monial identification is impeached, because the earlier identification has greater probative value than an identification made in the courtroom after the suggestions of others and the circumstances of the trial may have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness’ mind, [citations omitted]. The failure of the witness to repeat the extrajudicial identification in court does not destroy its probative value, for such failure may be explained by loss of memory or other circumstances. The extrajudicial identification tends to connect the defendant with the crime, and the principal danger of admitting hearsay evidence is not present since the witness is available at the trial for cross-examination.” [citations omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The witness was physically present in court and the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine him regarding his extra-judicial identification and did not seek to recall him to the stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re LJP“does not mean that the witness could not have been effectively questioned as to the circumstances surrounding his prior extra-judicial identification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re LJP
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.