Remsen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Notwithstanding the fact an unnecessarily suggestive pretrial confrontation has occured, an in-court identification is permissible if the state satisfies its burden to establish by “clear and convincing evidence” that, independent of the unconstitutional confrontation, an independent basis for the witness’s in-court identification exists. Neil v. Biggers (1972), 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ; Simmons v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 ; Swope v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 148 , 325 N.E.2d 193 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heiman v. Indiana

2. ““It is not proper to phrase final arguments in a manner calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury. DeHority v. State, (1939) 215 Ind. 390 , 19 N.E.2d 945 ; Lawson v. State, (1976) 171 Ind.App. 163 , 355 N.E.2d 274 . Prosecutors bear a special responsibility to adhere to the rule. Code of Professional Responsibility, Ethical Canon 7 — 13.” Id. at 245 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Limp v. State