521 So. 2d 1378 - Clements v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When an in-court identification of the accused is shown to have a basis independent of any pre-trial identification, then it is properly admitted into evidence.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carroll v. State · 568 So. 2d 381 - Gray v. State

2. “'This court has previously held that pretrial identifications are to be set aside on grounds of prejudice if the pretrial identification procedure is so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Scott v. State , 479 So.2d 1343 , 1347 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). It is only when the pretrial procedures used are unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the out-of-court identification need be analyzed. Coleman v. State , 487 So.2d 1380 , 1388 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986).'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 574 So. 2d 943 - Battle v. State · 641 So. 2d 299 - Wright v. State