State v. Blackwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

128 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The manner in which the pretrial identification was conducted; (2) the witness’s prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act; (3) the existence of any discrepancies between the defendant’s actual description and any descrip tion given by the witness before the photographic identification; (4) any previous identification by the witness of some other person; (5) any previous identification of the defendant himself; (6) failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion; and (7) the lapse of time between the alleged act and the out-of-court identification.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cross · State v. Carson

2. ““When a specific question is asked, objection should be made before the witness has time to answer. However, when admissibility is not indicated by the question and only becomes apparent by the content of the answer, objection should be made immediately by a motion to strike the answer, or the objectionable part of it. (citations omitted.) Failure to object in apt time to incompetent testimony results in a waiver of objection so that admission of the evidence will not be reviewed on appeal unless the evidence is forbidden by statute or results from questions asked by the trial judge or a juror, (citations omitted) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 N.C. App. 465 - State v. Powell

3. “each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. This standard accords with our resolution of a similar issue in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-302 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1972-1973 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206 , and with decisions of other courts on the question of identification by photograph.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Stepney