Israel v. Odom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 1972, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), the Supreme Court held that if a pretrial confrontation “was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to deny due process of law, a habeas corpus petitioner challenging the admissibility of testimony concerning the pretrial confrontation and a subsequent in-court identification, would be entitled to his requested relief. The Court cautioned, however, that a determination of this issue turns upon “the totality of the circumstances” presented by the particular case. This court, in United States ex rel. Kirby v. Sturges, 510 F.2d 397 , 402-3 (7th Cir.1975), identified three interrelated aspects of the “totality of the circumstances” which must be considered in a case such as the present. First, the court must determine whether the police procedures at issue in the case were, in fact, suggestive. If such suggestiveness is found, the court must next consider whether any unusual or exigent circumstances existed which might, at least in part, have justified the use of the faulty procedures. Finally, and most critically, the court must examine the reliability of the identification, in spite of the suggestive nature of the confrontation. It is clear that the reliability issue is the determining factor in this examination and unjustified, suggestive procedures may be overborne when there are present sufficient indicia of reliability. Neil v. Diggers, 409 U.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Medina · Jones v. Wisconsin

2. “many persons may lack the ability to articulate a detailed description of a person they have seen and yet can still identify him on sight.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charles E. Johnson v. Jerry D. Gilmore, Warden Hill Correctional Center, and Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of the State of Illinois · Dooley v. Duckworth

3. “Interpretation of state statutory law is manifestly not a proper function of this court under its habeas corpus jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Little v. Twomey, 477 F.2d 767 , 770 (7th Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 846, 94 S.Ct. 112, 38 L.Ed.2d 94.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harkins v. Wyrick