Fields v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This court has held that a ■ pretrial identification violates the Due Process Clause when there are suggestive elements in the identification procedure that make it all but inevitable that the victim will identify one person as the culprit. Mezquita v. State, 354 Ark. 433 , 125 S.W.3d 161 (2003). But, even when the process is suggestive, the circuit judge may determine that under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was sufficiently reliable for the matter to be 'decided by the jury. Fields v. State, 349 Ark. 122 , 76 S.W.3d 868 (2002) (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 [ 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ] (1972)). In determining the reliability of an [in-court] identification, we consider the following factors: (1) the prior opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged act; (2) the accuracy of the prior description of the accused; (3) any identification of another person prior to the pretrial identification procedure; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; (5) the failure of the witness to identify the defendant on a prior occasion; and (6) the lapse of time between the alleged act and the pretrial identification procedure, E.g., Van Pelt v. State, 306 Ark. 624 , 816 S.W.2d 607 (1991). When, as here, the photographic identification is followed by an eyewitness identification at trial, this court will not set aside the conviction unless the photographic lineup was so suggestive as to create a substantial possibility of mis-identifi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Ark. App. 418 - Smith v. State