301 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
March 1994
most recently cited
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Commonwealth v. Fowler · Commonwealth v. Katchmer
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The central concern where any identification is offered is whether, under the totality of circumstances, the identification was reliable. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). A pretrial identification will not be set aside unless the facts demonstrate that the identification procedure ‘was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 88 S.Ct. 967, 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253 (1968).” Commonwealth v. Linder, 284 Pa.Super. 327, 337 , 425 A.2d 1126, 1131 (1981). “[S]uggestiveness ... is only one factor to be considered in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. Suggestiveness alone does not warrant exclusion. Instead ‘[i]t is the likelihood of misidentification which violates a defendant’s right to due process....’ ” Commonwealth v. Ransome, 485 Pa. 490, 495 , 402 A.2d 1379, 1382 (1979), quoting from Commonwealth v. Sexton, 485 Pa. 17, 22 , 400 A.2d 1289, 1291 (1979). Factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification in a particular instance are: ... the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of”
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.