State v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[the Ramirez standard] should not be considered as a rejection of the Biggers model but, rather, as a refinement in the analysis”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Shields · State v. Harris

2. ““The law places tire burden upon the State to identify the defendant. The law does not require the defendant to prove he 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 a 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 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 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 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 tire eyewitness identification.””

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

3. “"(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the actor during the event; (2) the witness' degree of attention to the actor at the time of the event; (3) the witness' capacity to observe the event, including his or her physical and mental acuity; (4) whether the witness' identification was made spontaneously and remained consistent thereafter, or whether it was the product of suggestion; and (5) the nature of the event being observed and the likelihood that the witness would perceive, remember, and relate it correctly. This last factor requires the consideration of whether the event was an ordinary one in the mind of the observer during the time it was observed and whether the race of the actor was the same as the race of the observer. [Citation omitted.]" 275 Kan. at 817 -18 .”

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