State v. Signal’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 1988
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · 418 So. 2d 515 - State v. Smith · 353 So. 2d 1005 - State v. Guillot · 404 So. 2d 907 - State v. Robinson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One-on-one confrontations between the suspect and the victim, while not favored by the law, are permissible when justified by the overall circumstances. State v. Robinson, 404 So.2d 907 (La.1981). One reason for declining to disapprove such procedures is that they promote fairness by assuring reliability and the prompt release of innocent suspects. State v. Robinson, supra. A defendant attempting to suppress an identification must prove two things: (1) that the identification was “suggestive”, and (2) that there was a likelihood of misidentification in the identification procedure. State v. Robinson, supra. There are five factors to consider in determining whether an identification, although perhaps suggestive, was nevertheless reliable: (1) the opportunity to view; (2) the degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the description; (4) the witness’ level of certainty; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation. State v. Signal, 467 So.2d 1375 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hays
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.