592 So. 2d 867 - State v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To prove a violation of due process, a defendant seeking to suppress an identification must first show that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and second, that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); State v. Lowenfield, 495 So.2d 1245 (La.1985). In general, one on one photographic identifications (“show-ups”) are not favored; nevertheless, whether an impermissibly suggestive identification occurs depends on all of the circumstances. State v. Johnson, 333 So.2d 223 (La.1976); State v. Lewis, 478 So.2d 665 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985). Admitting evidence of a suggestive identification procedure does not violate due process if the identification is rehable. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); State v. Guillot, 353 So.2d 1005 (La.1977); State v. Mims, 501 So.2d 962 (La.App.2d Cir.1987). A tainted pretrial identification does not render a subsequent in-eourt identification inadmissible if the in-eourt identification is reliable and has an independent basis. State v. Winn, 412 So.2d 1337 (La.1982). Any defects in procedure which do not offend the defendant’s due process rights go to the weight, rather than the substance, of the evidence submitted to the jury. Manson v. Brathwaite, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 702 So. 2d 1005 - State v. Lagrange