State v. Trammell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Though three of the four factors differ somewhat from the Biggers factors, they present an approach to the identification issue which heightens, in our view, the reliability of such information. "We accept the Ramirez model; however, our acceptance should not be considered as a rejection of the Biggers model but, rather, as a refinement in the analysis. "We conclude that the Ramirez factors should be adopted as the model for examining such issues and that when requested or where such identification is a central issue in a case, a cautionary instruction regarding eyewitness identification should be given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 524 - State v. Hernandez

2. “[i]f there is testimony indicating a sufficient similarity between the weapon used to commit the charged crime and a weapon shown to be in the defendant's possession, 'the lack of testimony positively identifying the weapon as that used in the crime goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.'”

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

3. ““Although Hunt suggested that a cautionary instruction be given for eyewitness identification, it did not address the validity of PIK Crim. 3d 52.20. [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, Hunt does not support Trammell’s claim that PIK Crim. 3d 52.20 is erroneous.” 278 Kan. at 270 .”

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