Gonzalez v. Hammock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Finally, as the Supreme Court has done, we must acknowledge other aspects of this case which, although peripheral, certainly do not detract from our decision. See Manson, 432 U.S. at 116 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 . These include the facts that a jury saw [the eyewitness] and heard his testimony and accepted his statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the identification, and the identification itself. More importantly, Gonzalez admitted being in the automobile which contained the robbers of the gas station. This was not the chance of picking Gonzalez out of millions of others, but rather the third robber was either Gonzalez or Rodriguez. Finally, [the other robbery victim] described the third robber as having dungarees, a white T-shirt and an Afro. Gonzalez was so dressed that night. [The other passenger in the getaway car] had on a dashiki and had short hair. Thus, there was independent evidence bolstering the identification of Gonzalez.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abdur-Raheem v. Kelly

2. “[R]eliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony for both pre and post- Stovall confrontations. The factors to be considered are set out in Biggers. These include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. State

3. “There are two main reasons identification procedures have been suspect: first, the general problem of relying on eyewitness identification and second, the use of such procedures by overzealous police departments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. State