State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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. ““The law places the 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, die extent to which diey would affect accuracy of identification by an eyewitness. Factors you may consider are: “1. The opportunity the witness had to observe. This includes any physical condition which could affect the ability of die witness to observe, the length of tíme of observation, and any limitations on observation like an obstruction or poor lighting; “2. The emotional state of the witness at die time including that which might be caused by the use of a weapon or threat of violence; “3. Whether die witness had observed the defendants on earlier occasions; “4. Whether a significant amount of time elapsed between die crime charged and any later identification; “5. Whether the witness ever failed to identify die defendants 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. Whedier there are any odier circumstances diat may have affected die accuracy of the eyewitness identification.” (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moore · State v. Briseno

2. ““[T]he current language in PIK Crim. 3d 52.20 encourages jurors to give more weight to identifications by a certain witness than an uncertain one and does nothing to inform the juiy that certainty evidence may be unreliable. The instruction directs jurors to consider whether a witness has expressed a degree of certainty about the identification and, if so, the extent to which that factor would affect accuracy of the identification. As worded, this factor prompts the jury to conclude that an eyewitness identification is more rehable when the witness expresses greater certainty, which places undue weight on eyewitness certainty evidence. Therefore, we hold it is error to instruct the jury on the degree of certainty factor, and we discourage its further use.” Mitchell, 294 Kan. at 481 .”

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

3. “[W]e presume the jury follows the instructions given.). Further, in context, we discern that the redaction errors”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Boothby · State v. Lowery