Johnson v. Sublett’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 926 · 1995
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably 735 So. 2d 238 - Hughes v. State (1999), Commonwealth v. Chmiel (2005)
9 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Estelle v. McGuire
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any possible prejudice the defendant may suffer from unreliable identification is mitigated by cross-examination and other courtroom safeguards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“held that the suggestive character of courtroom logistics [i]s not unnecessarily suggestive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Johnson contends that the victim's in-court identification of the automobile which Johnson used to carry Jones out to the desert was tainted by unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures and therefore should have been excluded. While this argument deserves credit for creativity, Stovall and its progeny do not require car line-ups. There is no authority holding that a defendant's due process right to reliable identification procedures extends beyond normal authenticity and identification procedures for physical evidence offered by the prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.