United States v. Valez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 3 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A plenary hearing should be held on the whole lineup procedure and the issues raised, including waiver and substitute counsel, and if the trial court finds that Valez did not waive his right to counsel or that substitute counsel was not provided, it must then determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications by Korman, Sundland, and Totten ‘were based upon observations of the suspect other than the lineup identifications.’ 388 U.S. at 240 , 87 S.Ct. at 1939 . If on remand the court finds that the lineup procedure was illegal and that none of the in-court identifications by Korman, Sundland and Totten was based upon other independent sources than the lineup identification, a new trial should be granted; however, should independent sources exist for any (but not all) of these in-court identifications, the court must determine whether admission of the tainted in-court identification(s) was harmless error.” 431 F.2d 622 , 626.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Valez

2. “saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of the crime for which the accused is being tried * * *.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Cranson