Palmer v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis
359 F.2d 199 · 1966
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 6 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 204 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2008 · most notably Simmons v. United States (1968), Stovall v. Denno (1967)
87 federal appellate · 6 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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 Mapp v. Ohio · Escobedo v. Illinois · Rochin v. People of California · Malinski v. People of State of New York · Leyra v. Denno
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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" [E]ven in ordinary circumstances we must be cautious and accept only with reserve what a witness pretends to have heard. All the more must it be so if there are special difficulties in the way — if, for example, the voice comes from a great distance, if it is shrill, muffled, or presents any other peculiarity. The same is true if the person whose voice has been heard is of a different nationality from the listener, if he speaks another dialect, or is better or less educated. Criminal Investigation, Jackson ed. (5th ed. 1962), at 41-42.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The events which followed in the station house resulted in the principal evidence relied on by the State to connect Palmer to the offense. In stark contrast to the previous evening there was no lineup. Mrs. Britt was not allowed to see the suspect whom she was attempting to identify. For some unexplained reason Flythe was not subjected to a voice identification, despite the fact that he had been a suspect several hours before and his self-exeulpatory statements were the only basis for Palmer’s arrest. Nor did the police provide any other voices for comparison with Palmer’s. “Mrs. Britt and her neighbor were placed in one room, while Palmer, Sheriff Early, and another officer were in an adjoining room separated by a door which was left ‘a little ajar.’ The orange-colored shirt, which Palmer was wearing when arrested the day after the attack, had been removed from his back before Mrs. Britt arrived at the station, and was shown to her while she was seated in the adjoining room. This was the shirt Mrs. Britt described at the trials as ‘about the same color' as that worn by her attacker. Sheriff Early’s testimony was unclear as to whether the shirt was shown to her before listening to the voice, or immediately thereafter. “Mrs. Britt had previously told the police of certain phrases that her assailant uttered, and these were used as the vehicle for identification. The Sheriff directed Palmer to repeat after him the words which Mrs. Britt had attributed to the intruder, and Palme”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When she was brought to headquarters a few hours later to view a lineup of four or five negroes and to test her ability to recognize voices she could make no identification. The next day she identified defendant's voice through an open door, but only after being told that the police had a negro suspect in custody and being shown the suspect's shirt, which was the same color as that of her assailant. In addition, the suspect was induced to repeat certain phrases and”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.