United States v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
359 F.3d 820 · 2004
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · United States v. Stone · United States v. Ellzey
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e must determine “whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” [United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir.2002)] (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)). We do not “weigh the evidence,' consider the credibility of witnesses or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. Hilliard, 11 F.3d 618, 620 (6th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Evans, 883 F.2d 496, 501 (6th Cir.1989)). “Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not ‘remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.’ ” United States v. Ellzey, 874 F.2d 324, 328 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Stone, 748 F.2d 361, 363 (6th Cir.1984)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive.... Second, if the defendant meets this burden, the court evaluates the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the identification was nevertheless reliable .... The following factors guide the court’s reliability analysis: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention at the time of the crime; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the defendant; (4) the witness’s level of certainty when identifying the defendant at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the witness’ opportunity to view the suspect; (2) the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of the identification; and (5) the time between the crime and the identification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.