State v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2011
5 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Tibbs v. Florida · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall
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.
“Moreover, defendant would be entitled to no relief under the circumstances even if we were to accept as true his argument that the identification proce'dure was suggestive. Assuming a suggestive identification procedure, courts must look to several factors to determine, from the totality of the circumstances, whether the suggestive identification presents a substantial likelihood of misidentifb cation. These factors were initially set out in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), and approved in [Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)]. They include: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation. Id. 432 U.S. at 114 , 97 S.Ct. at 2253 . “Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.” Id.) see also State v. Lowenfield, 495 So.2d 1245 (La.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153 , 106 S.Ct. 2259 , 90 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729 (La.1984); State v. Winn, 412 So.2d 1337 (La.1982). State v. Martin, 595 So.2d 592, 595 (La.1992). In other words, even where an identification is considered suggestive it is usually still necessary to evaluate the likelihood of misidentifieation. It is ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To suppress an identification, defendant must prove that the identification was `suggestive,' and that there is a likelihood of misidentification in the identification procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rosette
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.