Garcia v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant first contends the in-court identification by John Walker should not have been permitted since the ‘one man show-up’ conducted by the police at the hospital shortly after the alleged offense tainted such identification. “There are a number of reasons why this contention is without merit. “First, the evidence shows an excellent opportunity for the witness to have observed the appellant in the narrow driveway under good lighting conditions at the time of the alleged offense after the floodlight was turned on, and it appears the in-court identification was based upon these observations. “Moreover, this court has in the past refused to extend the holdings of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 , to an on or near the scene confrontation between a suspect and a witness occurring shortly after the commission of a crime or under other circumstances which necessitate a prompt identification. Watkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 452 S.W.2d 444; Elliott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 444 S.W.2d 914 ; Perryman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 470 S.W.2d 703 (concurring opinion). Cf., however, the majority opinion in Perry-man v. State, supra. While the record is silent as to counsel at the hospital confrontation, there appears to be no evidence of suggestiveness.””

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