State v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where, as in the instant case, a one-on-one in-field identification is closely associated in time with the commission of the crime and where the suspect is returned to the location of the crime of immediate identification, such identifications have been found permissible. State v. Kelly, 362 So.2d 1071 (La.1978). 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. Dunbar, 356 So.2d 956 (La.1978). Applying the totality of the circumstances rule set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra [ 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)] (more recently asserted by the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 [1977]) we conclude that the record establishes the reliability of the in-field identifications.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 536 So. 2d 773 - State v. Williams