404 So. 2d 907 - State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably 450 So. 2d 621 - State v. Jackson (1984), 449 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Watson (1984)
1 federal appellate · 72 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Drew v. United States · United States v. Weber
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that the scope of the voir dire examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and his rulings thereon will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime for immediate identification, such identifications have been found permissible. State v. Kelly, 362 So.2d 1071 (La.1978). One reason for declining to disapprove such procedures is that they promote fairness by assuring reliability and the prompt release of innocent suspects. State v. Dunbar, 356 So.2d 956 (La. 1978). Applying the totality of the circumstances rule set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra [ 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ] (more recently asserted by the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 [1977]) we conclude that the record establishes the reliability of the in-field identifications."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the trial court must weigh the possibility of prejudice versus the important consideration of judicial economy and administration. In determining whether prejudice may result from the joinder, the court should consider whether the jury would be confused by the various counts; whether the jury would be able to segregate the various charges and evidence; whether the defendant could be confounded in presenting his various defenses; whether the crimes charged would be used by the jury to infer a criminal disposition and finally, whether, especially considering the nature of the charges, the charging of several crimes would make the jury hostile.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.