United States v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
449 F.2d 1026 · 1971
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably Commonwealth v. Turner (1974), Turner v. State (1972)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [T]he combined needs for fast and effective police action in apprehending criminals, and the avoidance of unnecessary inconvenience and embarrassment to innocent citizens incidental thereto. By such confrontations, a suspect not identified as the perpetrator of the crime is exonerated forthwith without being hauled to a police facility for a lineup, and possibly without suffering an arrest. Simultaneously, the police can quickly ascertain the necessity for any further investigation and search for the real culprit. Such confrontations, then, serve also to protect the innocent, and to promote efficiency in the deployment of limited police resources.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Coiner““We can no more say that every identification within any particular fixed period is assuredly reliable than we can say that every identification beyond that period is assuredly unreliable. We reject, then, a purely artificial time approach to confrontations of the type under review, and favor instead a standard which gives other factors bearing upon the fidelity of the identification their just due.” id. 449 F. 2d at 1032 . (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [I]t appears that prompt confrontation in circumstances like those of this case will 'if anything promote fairness, by assuring reliability * * *.' This probability, together with the desirability of expeditious release of innocent suspects, presents 'substantial countervailing policy considerations' which we are reluctant to assume the Supreme Court would reject.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Coiner
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.