Stanley v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 11 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . . [W]hat all these cases demonstrate is that, in weighing the several relevant factors suggested by Neil v. Biggers, Courts will recognize that ‘[D]ue process does not require that every pretrial identification of a witness must be conducted under laboratory conditions of an approved lineup’ [Davis v. United States, 407 F. 2d 846, 847 (4th Cir. 1969)] or show-up, that every case must be resolved on its own unique facts, and that, where after a weighing of all relevant facts surrounding the identification, including the time and place of confrontation, it is concluded that the show-up was not ‘unnecessarily suggestive’, testimony of the show-up identification is admissible. And we think this is a sound result, which will not invalidate what is, when properly used, a useful identification procedure simply because of the difficulties of applying the relevant rule as stated in Stovall to the facts of a particular case.” Id. 486 F. 2d at 52-53 . (Footnote omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. Leeke · Foster & Forster v. State

2. “There is no prohibition against a viewing of a suspect alone in what is called a 'one-man showup' when this occurs near the time of the alleged criminal act; such a course does not tend to bring about misidentification but rather tends under some circumstances to insure accuracy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norris v. Slayton · Allen v. Estelle

3. “The prosecutrix was in no physical danger at the time that the confrontation in the doctor’s office took place and that office was only a short distance from the police station. At the time that Smith was exhibited to her he was handcuffed and escorted by two uniformed police officers. The manner of exhibition, although properly motivated by considerations of security, thus carried with it an implied suggestion by the police that they believed Smith was the guilty party. There is no claim that the prosecutrix would have been unable to attend a lineup when she left the doctor’s office or thereafter, and there is no suggestion that the identification in this case was part of an on-the-scene immediate investigation such as has been held unobjectionable in other cases. ín short, there was no justification for incurring the inherent suggestiveness of a one-to-one confrontation under the circumstances described, nor was there any reason why a traditional and non-suggestive lineup could not have been employed ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. Leeke