Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2015
1 district · 15 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 Chapman v. State of California · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Coleman v. Alabama
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If it is feasible for each witness, victim or otherwise, to stand alone when asked to make the identification, aye [or] nay, this is the course that should be followed. While the benefit of a prompt on-the-scene confrontation makes acceptable the necessary suggestiveness of presentation of a single subject (a ‘show-up’), there is ordinarily no need for the additional element of suggestiveness of identification made at the same time by two or more witnesses in each other’s company.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. State · Smith v. State“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walls v. State · Vouras v. State“An identification procedure will not pass constitutional muster where it is “so im-permissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” That a confrontation is suggestive, without more, however, cannot amount to a due process violation; the unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure must also carry with it the increased danger of an irreparable misiden-tification. In other words, if the Court determines under the totality of the circumstances that a line-up is impermissibly suggestive, but nonetheless reliable, evidence of the confrontation will not be excluded at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Richardson v. State
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.