Emerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
148 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Ballard v. State (1974), Vacendak v. State (1976)
148 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Dillard v. State · Tungate 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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) that it is material and relevant; (3) that it is not cumulative; (4) that it is not merely impeaching; (5) that it is not privileged or incompetent; (6) that due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; (7) that the evidence is worthy of credit; (8) that it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and (9) that it will probably produce a different result.””
20 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Quinn v. State · Lanham v. State““. . . The rule in such situations is clear that when it is apparent from the circumstances of the case that there existed a sufficient basis, independent of the photograph, for the identification of the defendant then the verdict will not be disturbed. Wilson v. State (1970), [253] Ind. [585], 255 N.E.2d 817 ; United States v. Cook, 464 F.2d 251 (8th Cir. 1972). Among those circumstances which should be investigated to determine if there is a sufficient independent origin for the identification are the ‘length of time the witness was in the presence of the perpetrator, the distance of the witness from him, the lighting conditions at the time, capacity for observation by the witness, opportunity to observe particular characteristics of the criminal’. Dillard v. State (1971), [257] Ind. [282], 274 N.E.2d 387 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[dlirect eyewitness identification at trial is inadmissible if pre-trial photographic identification procedures which preceded it were so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brown v. State
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.