45 Kan. App. 2d 372 - State v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although we believe a literal interpretation of the term ‘impermissibly suggestive’ is a conclusive finding about the legality of die procedure, the Corbett court uses this standard of suggestiveness as only the beginning of its inquiry, not its end. Specifically, die Corbett test requires such a finding before die analysis can proceed to die second step for a determinadon regarding whetiier the ‘impermissibly suggestive’ procedure was reliable in light of the totality of die circumstances. See 281 Kan. at 304-06. “Significantly, use of ‘unnecessarily suggestive’ as a standard appears to derive from the analysis conducted by appellate courts in Kansas that recognize time is often crucial when there is an eyewitness who can identify a suspect and delay in identification could impede the police investigation. State v. Alires, 246 Kan. 635, 640 , 792 P.2d 1019 (1990) (citing State v. Meeks, 205 Kan. 261, 266 , 469 P.2d 302 [1970]). A literal inteipretation of the term ‘unnecessarily suggestive’ is consistent with this analysis, which requires the court to decide whetiier exigent circumstances necessitated the more suggestive procedure as opposed to use of an alternative procedure that was less suggestive. Notably, a finding that less suggestive procedures could have been used does not render the more suggestive procedure unreliable as a matter of law. Such a finding means only that the court is obliged to move on to the second part of the analysis. See Corbett, 281 Kan. at 304 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cruz