Sanchell v. Parratt’s Empirical Analysis
530 F.2d 286 · 1976
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently January 1992 · most notably United States v. Lewis (1976), Commonwealth v. Chase (1977)
28 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sanchell contends that since he had been formally charged with that unrelated robbery but was without counsel, it follows that using the February 8 arraignment as an identification confrontation violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel with reference to the rape-robbery charges. This argument misapprehends the meaning of Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). We agree with the district court that that case controls, and that under Kirby only those identification confrontations which occur after the defendant has been formally charged with the offense for which the identification testimony is sought require presence of counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“As a general rule, the identification testimony of one who has actually observed a crime is admissible and it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the testimony is worthy of credence. A different rule applies, however, where improper police suggestions may have influenced the witnesses to identify an innocent suspect. Limits on the admissibility of identification testimony which may have been influenced by governmental suggestion are mandated by the Sixth Amendment right to counsel clause and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.