389 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 396 So. 2d 1242 - State v. Friddle · 441 So. 2d 403 - State v. Peters

2. “(1) The opportunity to view: The victim and defendant were in the front seat of a car for approximately 15 minutes. Goines testified that the street lights made it light enough for him to clearly see defendant’s face even though it was nighttime. (2) The degree of attention: The victim testified that defendant at one point during the robbery told him to “get a good look at him.” Goines said he used the opportunity to study defendant’s face. (3) The accuracy of the description: Immediately after the crime, when Goines was being treated in the hospital emergency room, he told the detective that he remembered his assailant. Goines accurately described his assailant as a young black man in his early 20s, of thin to medium build, and weighing 170 to 180 pounds. Goines told the officer that the man had a goatee, an Afro hairstyle, and, had worn a knee-length green military overcoat. Goines also observed that his assailant had a gold upper tooth. (4) The witness’s level of certainty: The victim and the detective who presented the photographic lineup testified that Goines took less than one minute to identify defendant’s photograph. The victim testified that he could not forget his assailant’s face and was certain of his identification even though the defendant had changed his hairstyle and shaved his goatee since the crime. (5) The time between the crime and the confrontation: Goines was shown the photographic lineup two days after the robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jones

3. “In deciding whether to suppress identification testimony, we must balance the reliability of such identification against the corrupting influence of the suggestive identification itself. Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). State v. Stewart, 389 So.2d 1321 (La.1980). There are five factors used to determine the reliability of an identification. These are set out in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972) and have been followed by our courts. State v. Guillot, 353 So.2d 1005 (La. 1977); State v. Stewart, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 514 So. 2d 271 - State v. Hupp