345 So. 2d 618 - Fells v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We turn, then to the central question, whether under the `totality of the circumstances' the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive. As indicated by our cases, the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' 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. " (emphasis added)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 359 So. 2d 1355 - Scott v. State · 430 So. 2d 406 - Smith v. State

2. “[I]f the principal witness' identification is impeached, then independent evidence of the identification may be introduced through third persons present at the out-of-court identification. We are persuaded to this view because such evidence not only has greater probative force and thus preserves the better evidence, but also because the witness testifying is in court and subject to cross-examination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 560 So. 2d 163 - Hosford v. State · 519 So. 2d 1218 - Livingston v. State

3. “prior identification as independent, substantive evidence of identity by a witness who is available at trial for cross-examination ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 532 So. 2d 985 - Jimpson v. State