State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
46 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Foster v. California
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the witness’s opportunity to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime, (2) the witness’s degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the perpetrator, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Heyward · State v. Davis“Of further concern is the fact that Davis failed to recognize Wideman at the scene of the crime, notwithstanding she claimed to have seen the side of his face and knew him from her sister’s apartment complex. The fact that Davis failed to recognize him until the show-up highlights both the inherent unreliability of the identification and the completely suggestive nature of the show-up procedure. Further, as to the defendant Moore, Davis gave no physical description of him other than the fact that he was shorter and wore a black hat. She did not recall if he was stocky or thin; she recognized him at the show-up only by virtue of the black hat on the ground beside him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown“Only if [the procedure] was suggestive need the court consider the second question — whether there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifícation. Although one-on-one show-ups have been sharply criticized, and are inherently suggestive, the identification need not be excluded as- long as under all the circumstances the identification was reliable notwithstanding any suggestive procedure. [The] inquiry, therefore, must focus upon whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentifícation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.