State v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[E]ach must be considered on its own facts, and . . . 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cross · State v. Haskins

2. “(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.”

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

3. ““In the factual context of this case, although the showing of only one photograph to the victim accompanied by the statement ‘we’ve grot a man, is this the one’ was im-permissibly suggestive and evidence thereof incompetent, we hold its admission was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations omitted.] The unequivocal in-court identification of defendant by Mr. Garner, the presence of defendant’s jacket in Mr. Garner’s bedroom containing a letter addressed to the defendant, a certified birth certificate of defendant, and a Selective Service notice of classification bearing defendant’s name, and the fact that the description of defendant’s clothing given by Mr. Garner to the police was substantially similar to the actual clothing defendant was wearing when seen by Officer Poe about one hour after the burglary, constitutes evidence of guilt so overwhelming that, in our opinion, the impact of the photographic identification on the minds of the jurors was insignificant. Unless there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to the conviction, its admission constitutes harmless error. [Citations omitted.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 N.C. App. 284 - State v. Sanders