Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 S.W.3d 766 - Wiggins v. State

Wiggins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 5th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Hooper v. State · Wesbrook v. State · Hall v. State · Cooks v. State

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

  1. “When a defendant contests the identity element of the offense, we are mindful that identity may be proven by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or even inferences. Although a direct in-court identification is the preferred procedure, where the circumstances do not indicate the likelihood of confusion, that type of identification is not required. If there is no in-court identification of the perpetrator's identity elicited from trial witnesses, no formalized procedure is required for the State to prove the identity of the accused ... [T]he absence of an in-court identification is merely a factor for the jury to consider in assessing the weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.