Smith v. Coiner’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 877 · 1973
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), State v. Mitchell (1987)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ .... As indicated by our cases, the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n post-Stovall cases, ‘[s]uggestive confrontations are disapproved because they increase the likelihood of misidenti-fication, and unnecessarily suggestive ones are condemned for the further reason that the increased chance of misiden-tification is gratuitous.’ * * * The shift in emphasis from unnecessarily suggestive confrontations (post-Stovall cases) to reliability of identification (pre- Stovall cases) is explained by the need, once Stovall was decided, ‘to deter the police from using a less reliable procedure where a more reliable one may be available.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. State““[W]e hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eye-witness identification at trial, following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if. the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly 4 suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bartley v. State
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.