Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably Burks v. State (1979), Hays v. State (1980)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 69 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 Chapman v. State of California · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · United States v. Shotwell Manufacturing Co.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining the admissibility of the courtroom identification of such witness, the trial court should conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury and determine if, independent of the lineup identification, the witness can make positive identification of the accused, taking into consideration the following: the prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act, the existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description, any identification prior to lineup of another person, the identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup, failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification. It is also relevant to consider those facts which, despite the absence of counsel, are disclosed concerning the conduct of the lineup.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pfeifer v. State · Hughes v. State“[o]ther people participating in the lineup should be of the same general weight, height, age, color and race, whenever possible, and the suspect should not be clothed in such a manner as to attract special attention or make him stand out from the other persons in the lineup.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fisher v. Cowley · Arriola v. State
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.