Commonwealth v. Odware’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Crayton (2014), Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago (2009)
36 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 Commonwealth v. Flebotte · Commonwealth v. Botelho · Commonwealth v. Wilson · Commonwealth v. Sanna · Commonwealth v. Johnson
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a defendant alleges that witness identifications arise from unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, the ‘defendant has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the witness was subjected by the State to a pretrial confrontation . . . “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to deny the defendant due process of law.’ Commonwealth v. Otsuki, 411 Mass. 218, 232 (1991), quoting Commonwealth v. Venios, 378 Mass. 24, 26-27 (1979). The judge, in considering whether identification testimony should be suppressed, must examine ‘the totality of the circumstances attending the confrontation to determine whether it was unnecessarily suggestive.’ Commonwealth v. Otsuki, supra at 232-233 . If a defendant establishes that a confrontation was unnecessarily suggestive, then the identifications are excluded based on due process rights guaranteed by art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 420 Mass. 458, 462-465 (1995); Commonwealth v. Botelho, 369 Mass. 860, 865-869 (1976). Subsequent identifications are admis sible only if the Commonwealth demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the identifications have an independent source. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra at 463 , citing Commonwealth v. Botelho, supra at 868 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“were grounded on the evidence and were within the range of rhetoric and 'excusable hyperbole' available to either side in closing argument.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Ouk
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.