Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whenever the prosecution proposes to make eyewitness identification a part of its case, the defense is entitled to know, through disclosure by the prosecution or by evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury, the circumstances of any pre-trial identification. If it was one where the court finds that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel existed but was not observed, the prosecution may not, under the per se exclusionary rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gilbert , offer such identification as part of its case; and the same rule would appear to be applicable with respect to prosecution evidence of post -Stovall pre-trial identifications found by the court to be violative of due process. “Where the prosecution intends to offer only an in-court identification, the defense may challenge its admissibility. The court should then, on facts elicited outside the presence of the jury, rule upon whether a pre-trial identification by the same eyewitness is violative of due process or the right to counsel. If a violation is found, the court should then decide whether the in-court identification is still admissible because it has an independent source; indeed, it would appear in the interest of expeditious judicial administration for such a ruling to be made in any event. If the judge regards only the in-court identification as admissible, in the trial to the jury thereafter, the defense may, as a matter of trial tactics, decide to bring out the pre-trial confrontation itsel”

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

2. ““At the very least there would have to be statement that there has been a pre-trial photographic or lineup identi fication or other type of identification confrontation before the motion for an evidentiary hearing should be entertained; in short, there should be some showing that ‘a Simmons issue is present.’ “At a minimum [the defendant] must establish that there has been pre-trial identification as a predicate for a motion for an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury. Any other rule would mean that whenever courtroom identification testimony is offered the defendant could force an interruption of the trial, whether there is any justification or not and whether his motion is timely or not. Such a rule, so fraught with opportunity for needless and wasteful trial delays, cannnot be countenanced.” Id. at 127, 128.”

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

3. ““ * * * The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method’s potential for error. * * *»”

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