3 Cal. 3d 853 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Ilis objection was to the identification of the suspect out of his presence following the lineup. It is urged that the identification is a part of the lineup and the lineup is therefore not completed until the identification is made. We disagree. While it may be good procedure to identify the accused at the lineup, identification follows the lineup. The purpose of counsel at the lineup is to prevent impermissible suggestiveness or influence at the lineup proceeding. Mr. Favro argues that the police might improperly assist the eyewitness in the identification following the lineup. This unfortunate possibility is present throughout the pretrial proceedings up to the time of in-court testimony by the eyewitness. Skillful cross-examination is the remedy for such purported misconduct. To hold otherwise is to require the presence of counsel whenever a witness who will testify about the identity of the ac- eused is interrogated by the police. * * * The goal is to detect any unfairness in the confrontation between the witness and the accused and to insure that any suggestion made at that time by the law enforcement officer, either intentionally or unintentionally, is observed. The basis for the requirement of the presence of counsel is the presence of the accused when confronted by the witness or witnesses.” (Emphasis in the opinion.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Wilcox

2. ““It is not the moment of viewing alone, but rather the whole ‘procedure by which [a suspect] is identified’ that counsel must be able to effectively reconstruct at trial. [Citation.] If defense counsel is to be able to intelligently cross-examine the witness, he cannot be excluded from the moment of identification any more than he can be excluded from the lineup itself. To hold otherwise would be to reduce counsel’s cross-examination ‘to little more than shooting in the dark,’ for he would not be fully apprised of what occurred at the identification interview. [Citation.] For example, the defendant would have no way of knowing whether the witness was improperly led, whether the witness was hesitant or unsure in his identification, and he would not know what language or expressions the witness used. All of these factors could be very significant on cross-examination.” Williams, 3 Cal. 3d at 856 , 478 P. 2d at 944 , 92 Cal. Rptr. at 8 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 395 Ill. App. 3d 797 - People v. White

3. “[T]he exclusion of counsel from the moment of actual identification frustrated the second purpose of Wade and Gilbert [v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 , 87 S. Ct. 1951 (1967)], namely, to safeguard against the inherent risks of suggestion which are present at that time.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 14 Wash. App. 951 - State v. Kimball