Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “by a preponderance of the evidence that the identification was 'so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification that its admission would deprive the defendant of his right to due process.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 225 - Commonwealth v. Galipeau · 93 Mass. App. Ct. 120 - Commonwealth v. Rivers

2. “In determining the strength of an identification's independent source, we consider such factors as the quality of the witness's opportunity to observe the offender at the time of the crime, the amount of time between the crime and the identification, whether the witness's earlier description of the perpetrator matches the defendant, and whether the witness earlier identified another person as the perpetrator or failed to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. COMMONWEALTH v. KEVIN PLOUDE. · COMMONWEALTH v. JOSE SANTIAGO.

3. “Our conclusion that the identifications were not 'unnecessarily suggestive' does not end the inquiry. Even if otherwise admissible, a judge may suppress identification evidence if 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 225 - Commonwealth v. Galipeau · State of Maine v. Matthew R. Davis