4 Cal. 3d 273 - People v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 115 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... We are of the opinion that the photographic lineup was not `unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.' ( Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. 293, 302 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1206 ].) It is true that in the three color photographs defendant is the only participant wearing a gold shirt and gold sweater, whereas the four other men wore white shirts or white sweaters. In People v. Beivelman. supra, 70 Cal.2d 60, 78 [ 73 Cal. Rptr. 521 , 447 P.2d 913 ], we held, however, that the fact that appellant wore light-colored pants while the other men wore dark-colored pants did not render that lineup unfair. The clothing worn by defendant was not similar to that described to the police by Mrs. Ward, and each man wore a shirt or sweater dissimilar from each of the others. The participants all appeared to be of a comparable age and of similar build. None had distinctive features. As there was nothing in the conduct of the procedure whereby Mrs. Ward was shown the photographs that was `so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification' ( Simmons v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. 377, 384 [ 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1253 ]), the identification testimony was properly admitted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Carter

2. “Despite the hazards of initial identification by photograph, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs. The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method’s potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement. Instead, we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to •give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Wash. App. 278 - State v. Finkley