Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably Beck v. State (1986), Mann v. Scott (1994)
2 federal appellate · 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 United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Fay v. Noia · Gilbert v. California
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant next contends the pretrial identification was a lineup held under such circumstances as to amount to a denial of due process of law. He urges this independent of the right to counsel claim discussed in Wade and Gilbert. In Martinez v. State, supra, we took note that even in post-Gilbert and Wade cases questions concerning the conduct of the lineup may be relevant in determining the origin of an in-court identification. See Footnote #2. See also Pearson v. United States, 389 F.2d 684 (5 CA). And it has been indicated that ‘in an aggravated case involving violation of such proportions as in effect to deprive the defendant of due process the appellate court may grant relief notwithstanding failure to make proper objection.’ Futrell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, supra [ 141 Ky. 310 , 132 S.W. 655 ]. This is not such a case. Such an attack is based upon a totality of the circumstances bearing upon the indentification of the accused with the particular crime. If the Procedure employed to obtain such identification fails to meet those ‘canons of decency and fairness established as part of the fundamental law of the land’ then due process has been violated. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ; See Palmer v. Peyton, 359 F.2d 199 (4 CA).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Green v. State““The trial court erred in not granting Defendant’s motion for new trial because the totality of the circumstances bearing upon the identification of the accused were so fundamentally unfair and viola-tive of due process as to deprive the accused of a fair trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Green 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.