State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant who seeks to suppress an identification must prove that the identification itself was suggestive and that there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure. State v. Lowenfield, 495 So.2d 1245 (La.1985); State v. O'Neal, 478 So. 2d 1311 (5th Cir.1985). Photographs employed in a lineup are suggestive if they display a defendant so singularly that the witness' attention is unduly focused on the defendant. State v. Medford, 489 So.2d 957 (5th Cir.1986). Strict identity of physical characteristics among the persons depicted in the photographic array is not required; all that is required is a sufficient resemblance to reasonably test the identification. Smith, supra; Medford, supra. This determination is made by examining articulable features of the pictures such as height; weight; build; hair color, length and texture; facial hair; skin color and complexion; and the shape and size of the nose, eyes, lips, etc. State v. Guillot, 353 So.2d 1005 (La.1977); State v. Medford, supra. At p. 1307.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 542 So. 2d 651 - State v. Isaac · 542 So. 2d 528 - State v. Gabriel

2. “A prosecutor should refrain from argument which tends to divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law or by making predictions of the consequences of the jury's verdict. American Bar Association Standard 5.8(d).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 563 So. 2d 530 - State v. Washington · State v. Washington

3. “1. the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2. the witness's degree of attention; 3. the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; 4. the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and 5. the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 737 So. 2d 255 - State v. Myers · 593 So. 2d 759 - State v. Wright