Commonwealth v. Santoli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 55 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Federal Courts of Appeals treat the question as one of discretion in the trial judge____ In State courts, judges have generally excluded expert testimony on eyewitness identification, and those decisions have been upheld on review---- In a relatively small number of cases, the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification has been characterized as an abuse of discretion. The opinions that rule that the exclusion of the expert testimony was or may have been error are typically those where there was little or no evidence to corroborate the eyewitness identification____ These latter cases were decided on fact-specific grounds____ The facts of this case, particularly the physical evidence, provide significant corroboration of the victim’s identification. In such a case, we defer to the trial judge’s discretion. There was no error in excluding the evidence. We grant that the rule to which we adhere may result in disparate treatment in similar cases. That is inherent in any grant of discretion to trial judges. Appellate courts have done little to guide the exercise of discretion in this area, except that a few courts have stated that some evidence corroborating the eyewitness identification is required if the expert testimony is to be excluded. The absence of appellate guidelines will likely persist unless and until learning about the reliability of eyewitness identifications becomes more developed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Brown

2. “When an eyewitness identification of the defendant is a key element of the prosecution's case but is not substantially corroborated by evidence giving it independent reliability, and the defendant offers qualified expert testimony on specific psychological factors shown by the record that could have affected the accuracy of the identification but are not likely to be fully understood by the jury, it will ordinarily be error to exclude that testimony.”

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

3. “[i]t is probably true that the challenged instruction has merit in so far as it deals with the testimony of a witness who expressed doubt about the accuracy of her identification....”

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