6 Md. App. 59 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 126 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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the hearing on the issue raised by the challenge the burden is on the defendant to show, prima facie, that the pre-trial confrontation or viewing of photographs was illegal, and if he so shows, the burden shifts to the State to show by clear and convincing evidence that it was legal. If the court finds that the State has met its burden and that the pretrial confrontation or viewing was legal, an in-court identification by the witness present at the pre-trial confrontation or viewing is admissible as substantive evidence. And if such witness made a pre-trial identification, his testimony to that effect is so admissible. And, the testimony of a third party present when the pre-trial identification was made is so admissible provided the out-of-court declarant is at the trial and subject to cross-examination; whether or not he makes an in-court identification. If the court finds that the pre-trial confrontation or viewing was illegal, any and all evidence of the pre-trial identification is per se inadmissible. The burden is then on the State to establish that the in-court identification offered had a source independent of the illegal pre-trial confrontation or viewing. It must do this ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that the in-court identification is based ‘upon observations of the suspect’ by the witness other than the confrontation or photographic identifications.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Md. App. 344 - Miller v. State · 15 Md. App. 198 - Conway v. State

2. ““* * * we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 24 Md. App. 468 - Sallie v. State

3. ““But the Court said that it was a recognized ground of attack upon a conviction, independent of any right to counsel claim, that a pre-trial confrontation was ‘so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification’ as to be a denial of due process of law. Such a claimed violation of due process of law depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it. Although the Court recognized that the circumstances of a confrontation may result in a denial of due process of law, it found, on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confrontation there, that due process had not been denied. It did not enunciate exclusionary rules applicable when there is such a denial, but we think it follows that when a confrontation is illegal, whether by the denial of the constitutional right to counsel or the constitutional right to due process of law, the same exclusionary rules would apply. We hold that when a pre-trial confrontation is found to be illegal by the denial of due process of law, the exclusionary rules, enunciated in Wade and Gilbert, 1 as hereinbefore set out, are applicable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Md. App. 215 - Layman v. State