State v. Saenz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he or she objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he or she objects and the grounds of his or her objection, unless the instruction or the failure to give the instruction is clearly erroneous. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-3414(3). Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced that there is a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the trial error had not occurred. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 346 , 22 P.3d 151 (2001).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Trotter · State v. Hoge

2. ““The law places the burden upon the State to identify the defendant. The law does not require the defendant to prove (he)(she) 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 winch they would affect accuracy of identification by an eyewitness. Factors you may consider are: “I. 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 fighting; “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 defendant(s) 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 defendant(s) or made any inconsistent identification; “6. The degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused; and “7. Whether there are any other circumstances that may have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness identification.” PIK Crim. 3d 52.20.' “In any criminal action in which eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is serious question about the reliabili”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Calvin

3. ““(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the defendant at the time of the crime, (2) the witness’ degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior descriptions of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ho K. Duong