409 So. 2d 918 - Phillips v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The discrepancies or contradictions in (the victim’s) testimony are factors bearing on the credibility of the witness and concern the weight and probative value to be given his testimony by the jury. These factors do not concern the admissibility of (the victim’s) testimony.’ Phillips v. State, 409 So.2d 918, 920 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).” Id., at 1328.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawson v. State · 539 So. 2d 337 - Nickerson v. State

2. “That a person is actually told that the suspect's photograph is among the other pictures, although generally inadvisable, does not contaminate the identification proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 441 So. 2d 1065 - Ramsey v. State · 415 So. 2d 1233 - Jones v. State

3. “"The first prong in determining whether a pretrial identification can be properly admitted is whether the photographic lineup is impermissibly suggestive. If it is not, the inquiry ends. However, even if there had been an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure, the incourt identification testimony need not be excluded if the prosecution can establish by clear and convincing testimony that, rather than stemming from the unfair pretrial confrontation, the identification has an independent source." (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 426 So. 2d 517 - Cowgill v. State