300 So. 2d 492 - State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Federal and state due process requirements mandate the reversal of criminal convictions based on in-court identifications which have no basis independent of impermissibly suggestive line-up or photographic identifications. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) and State v. Wallace, 285 So.2d 796 (La.1973). In the course of our review we must therefore resolve two issues: first, were the photographic identification procedures employed by the prosecution impermissibly suggestive and, second, even if there is such misconduct, does the record reveal that there existed an independent and untainted basis for the witness’ in-court identification?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mackey

2. ““Guidelines for determining whether a criminal defendant has been denied his federal constitutional right to a speedy trial were set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The factors which are to be considered are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the resulting prejudice to the defendant, and the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial. “In Barker , the United States Supreme Court, while rejecting a rigid time formula, recognized the states’ right to set a time period for bringing accuseds to trial, provided that the prescribed time period is consistent with constitutional standards.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Labrano