453 So. 2d 1323 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[A] witness's prior inability to identify a defendant goes to the credibility of the in-court identification and not to its admissibility, and thus raises a proper question of fact for the jury to determine."”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 645 So. 2d 344 - Battle v. State · 652 So. 2d 331 - MacOn v. State

2. “" ' Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293 [ 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ] (1967), established a due process right to exclude unreliable identification testimony that results from procedures that are both unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188 [ 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ] (1972), established the rule that, where the witness's in-court identification arguably stems from a suggestive out-of-court identification, the question is "whether under the 'totality of circumstances' the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive," 409 U.S. at 119 [ 93 S.Ct. at 382 ], and whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Manson v. Brathwaite , 432 U.S. 98 [ 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 ] (1977), held that, where a pretrial identification is obtained by a procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary, "reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony," 432 U.S. at 114 [ 97 S.Ct. at 2253 ], and that the reliability of the identification must be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification procedure itself. However, identification evidence derived from an unnecessarily suggestive source need not be excluded if the totality of the circumstances indicates its reliability.' " Johnson v. State , 453 So.2d 1323 , 1327 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). See also Jones v. State , 431 So.2d 1367 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). T”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 683 So. 2d 1042 - Ex Parte Windsor · 545 So. 2d 828 - Robinson v. State

3. ““ ‘The discrepancies or contradictions in (the victim’s) testimony are factors bearing on the credibility of the witness and concern the weight and probative value to be given his testimony by the jury. These factors do not concern the admissibility of (the victim’s) testimony.’ Phillips v. State, 409 So.2d 918, 920 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).” Id., at 1328.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawson v. State · 539 So. 2d 337 - Nickerson v. State