48 Ala. App. 330 - McGhee 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It must be recognized that improper employment of photographs by police may sometimes cause witnesses to err in identifying criminals. A witness may have obtained only a brief glimpse of a criminal, or may have seen him under poor conditions. Even if the police subsequently follow the most correct photographic identification procedures and show him the pictures of a number of individuals without indicating whom they suspect, there is some danger that the witness may make an incorrect identification. This danger will be increased if the police display to the witness only the picture of a single individual who generally resembles the person he saw, or if they show him the pictures of several persons among which the photograph of a single such individual recurs or is in some way emphasized. The chance of misidentification is also heightened if the police indicate to the witness that they have other evidence that one of the persons pictured committed the crime. Regardless of how the initial misidentification comes about, the witness thereafter is apt to retain in the memory the image of the photograph rather than of the' person actually seen, reducing the trustworthiness of subsequent lineup or courtroom identification. “Despite the hazards of initial identification by photograph, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Ala. App. 299 - Terry v. State

2. ““As to the issue of the assistance of counsel at the time of the out-of-court photographic identification, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Ballard, 423 F.2d 127, at 131 , stated: “ ‘We follow our brethren of the Second, Seventh and Tenth Circuits in holding that Gilbert [Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ] and Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ]—neither through Simmons nor outside Simmons — require the counsel for an accused be present at the time of any out-of-court photographic identification, regardless of whether the accused is in custody or not. “ ‘Actually the point raised in Simmons deals with the application of the Fifth Amendment guaranty of due process vis-a-vis photographic identification. As Mr. Justice Harlan stated in Simmons , “This is a claim which must be evaluated in light of the totality of surrounding circumstances.” ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Ala. App. 299 - Terry v. State