State v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 61 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) (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 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 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 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; “7. Whether there are other circumstances that may have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness identification.” (Emphasis added.) PIK Crim. 3d 52.20.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reid · State v. Ho K. Duong

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. ““In Calderon , this court addressed the issue of whether harmless error could prevent reversal once a defendant’s constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of the proceeding had been violated. Calderon was found to have been denied his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage when the trial court ordered the interpreter, necessary for Calderon to understand the proceedings, not to translate closing arguments for Calderon. The court examined the distinction between trial errors, which are subject to a harmless error analysis, and structural errors, which require a new trial. In reversing Calderon’s conviction, the majority of the court concluded that the failure to translate the closing arguments implicated a basic consideration of fairness and that a harmless error analysis was inappropriate under the circumstances. 270 Kan. at 253 .” Mann, 274 Kan. at 682-83 .”

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