563 So. 2d 44 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 1995
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · 444 So. 2d 884 - Robinson v. State · 487 So. 2d 1380 - Coleman v. State · 364 So. 2d 382 - Cooper v. State · 494 So. 2d 789 - Abbott v. State
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When a party challenges a pre-trial identification, this court must apply a two-part analysis. First, we must determine if the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive. Johnson v. State , 526 So.2d 34 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Coleman v. State , 487 So.2d 1380 , 1387 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). [Second, i]f we find that the lineup was unnecessarily suggestive, then we must review the 'totality of the circumstances' (five factors) as set out in Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188 [ 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 ] . . . (1972)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[to] allow the introduction of an out-of-court photographic array, the state only need show a reasonable probability that the photographs introduced at trial were those used by the witness for identification purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“photographs are typically admissible if they are 'properly verified by a person who is familiar with the subject of the photographs.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.