283 So. 2d 756 - State v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 684 So. 2d 368 - State v. Seals (1996), 975 So. 2d 753 - State v. Gullette (2008)
1 federal appellate · 57 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California · Kirby v. Illinois
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Even if the out-of-court identification was tainted, if the in-court identification had a source independent of the out-of-court identification, the in-court identification does not violate defendant's due process rights. . . . A determination of whether the witness's in-court identification was based on an independent source seems to involve three factors: "1. The prior acquaintance of the witness with the accused. . . . "2. Length of time the witness observed the perpetrator before, during and after commission of the offense. . . . "3. The circumstances under which the observation was made. . . . This consideration should include illumination at the scene, the physical capacities of the witness, and the emotional state the witness was in at the time of observation."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Due process prohibits the conduct of an identification procedure in a manner that is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L. Ed.2d 402 (1969). In a determination of whether an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive, reference must be made to all the circumstances. State v. Amphy, 259 La. 161 , 249 So.2d 560 (1971); Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); Foster v. California, supra; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Banks · State v. Rudolph“". . . that a determination of whether the witness' in-court identification was based upon an independent source involves these factors: (1) the prior acquaintance of the witness with the accused; (2) length of time the witness observed the perpetrator before, during and after commission of the offense; (3) the circumstances under which the observation was made. This would include illumination at the scene, the physical capacities of the witness and the emotional state the witness was in at the time of observation."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.