State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Adams (2003), Wright v. Craft (2006)
2 federal appellate · 66 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 Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · United States v. Telfaire · State v. Kelsey
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Some general guidelines emerge from these [pre-trial identification] cases as to the relationship between suggestiveness and misidentification. It is, first of all, apparent that the primary evil to be avoided is “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” ... While the phrase was coined as a standard for determining whether an in-court identification would be admissible in the wake of a suggestive out-of-court identification, with the deletion of “irreparable” it serves equally well as a standard for the admissibility of testimony concerning the out-of-court identification itself. It is the likelihood of misidentification which violates a defendant’s right to due process.... Suggestive confrontations are disapproved because they increase the likelihood of misidentification, and unnecessarily suggestive ones are condemned for the further reason that the increased chance of misidentification is gratuitous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lewis“the use of a deadly weapon, the infliction of serious bodily injury, the intent to commit a felony, great disparity between the ages and physical conditions of the parties involved, ... the difference in the sexes ... [,] indecent liberties or familiarities with a female, the purposeful infliction of shame and disgrace, and resistance to lawful authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’s degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Moore
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.