430 So. 2d 1303 - State v. Marchese’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

cited by 41 later decisions

states following

May 2015

most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably 459 So. 2d 31 - State v. Richardson (1984), State v. Savoie (1984)

41 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Manson v. Brathwaite · State v. Washington · 389 So. 2d 1263 - State v. Douglas · 404 So. 2d 929 - State v. Bickham

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

“Upon its own motion the court may, and upon request of the state or the defendant the court shall, order that the witnesses be excluded from the courtroom or from where they can see or hear the proceedings and refrain from discussing the facts of the case or the testimony of any witness with anyone other than the district attorney or defense counsel. The court may modify its order in the interest of justice.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Borel
““The purpose of sequestration is to assure that a witness will testify as to his own knowledge of the events, to prevent the testimony of one from influencing the testimony of others, and to strengthen the role of cross examination in developing facts. State v. Parker, 421 So.2d 834 (La.1982); State v. Sonnier, 402 So.2d 650 (La.1981); State v. Gray, 351 So.2d 448 (La.1977); State v. Johnson, 343 So.2d 155 (La.1977).” State v. Marchese, 430 So.2d 1303 , at page 1306 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Borel · State v. Nance
“"... reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. The factors to be considered include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty displayed at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification ... the standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In the final analysis, it must be determined whether under all the circumstances of a particular case there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 470 So. 2d 406 - State v. Austin

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.