428 So. 2d 206 - Raines v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`"[T]he required inquiry is two-pronged. The first question is whether the initial identification procedure was `unnecessarily' [ Stovall v. Denno , *Page 1054 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)] or `impermissibly' [ Simmons v. U.S. , 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)] suggestive. If it is found to have been so, the court must then proceed to the question whether the procedure found to have been `unnecessarily,' or `impermissibly' suggestive was so `conducive to irreparable mistaken identification' [ Stovall ] or had such a tendency `to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification' [ Simmons ] that allowing the witness to make an in-court identification would be a denial of due process. United States ex rel. Phipps v. Follette , 428 F.2d 912 , 914-915 (2d Cir. 1970).'" Raines v. State , 428 So.2d 206 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 So. 2d 824 - Jones v. State · 487 So. 2d 1022 - Blackmon v. State

2. “"Whether an in-court identification has been so tainted by an extrajudicial identification as to vitiate the in-court identification is not to be determined solely by the circumstances of the extrajudicial identification, but all of the circumstances relative to the identification of defendant by the witness are to be taken into consideration, and if it is determinable therefrom that an in-court identification was independent of the extrajudicial identification, evidence of the in-court identification is admissible. Matthews v. State , 361 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978)." Raines v. State , 428 So.2d 206 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 439 So. 2d 193 - Cooley v. State · 485 So. 2d 351 - Crowe v. State

3. “[T]he factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 481 So. 2d 1173 - Brown v. State · 485 So. 2d 351 - Crowe v. State