485 So. 2d 799 - Allison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'In determining the constitutional adequacy of pretrial identification, the central question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification was reliable.' Brazell v. State , 369 So.2d 25 , 28 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978). One man show-ups are, by their very nature, suggestive. Weatherford v. State , 369 So.2d 863 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 873 (Ala. 1979). However, this does not necessarily mean that show-ups are unduly suggestive. Cooley v. State , 439 So.2d 193 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Alabama case law has consistently recognized that one man show-ups are an important part of efficient police work and generally show how well the police do their job. Conducted as soon as possible after the commission of the crime, they are a reliable, accurate, and constitutionally acceptable identification procedure. Hobbs v. State , 401 So.2d 276 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981); Carter v. State , 340 So.2d 94 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Robinson v. State , 55 Ala. App. 658 , 318 So.2d 354 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975); see also, Bates v. United States , 132 U.S. App. D.C. 36 , 405 F.2d 1104 (1968). An identification deprives the accused of due process of law only where the procedure used is so 'impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.' Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 [384], 88 S.Ct. 967 , 971 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 , 1253 (1968).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 659 So. 2d 995 - Dunning v. State · 625 So. 2d 1162 - Hall v. State