State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant who does not file a motion to suppress an identification, and who fails to contemporaneously object to the admission of the identification testimony at trial, fails to preserve the issue of its admissibility as an error on appeal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 So. 3d 424 - State v. McElroy · 924 So. 2d 437 - State v. Boyance

2. “The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Louisiana Declaration of Rights guarantee a criminal defendant reasonably effective assistance of counsel. A strong presumption exists that the conduct of counsel falls within the wide range of responsible professional representation. The constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel does not guarantee errorless representation. Consequently, the defendant bears the burden of proving that his attorney failed to meet the requisite level of minimal competency which is normally required. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set forth the test to determine whether the performance of a criminal defendant’s counsel was deficient: First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors wei’e so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction ... resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Thus, the defendant must make both showings before the conclu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 So. 3d 313 - State v. Scott

3. “... For the identification to be inadmissible due to an allegedly suggestive identification procedure, there must be a substantial likelihood of misidentification in addition to the suggestive identification procedure. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); [State v.] Rosette, [ 94-1075 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/22/95) ]; 653 So.2d 80 . Thus, an appellate court must determine from the totality of the circumstances, whether the suggestive identification presents a substantial likelihood of misidentification. In determining whether there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification, we consider the factors as delineated by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal when the crime was committed; (2) the degree of attention by the witness; (3) the accuracy of the prior description of the criminal given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty evidenced by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the amount of time between the offense and the confrontation. Furthermore, this court has held that “[a]gainst these factors is to be weighted the corrupting effect of the Issuggestive identification itself”. Rosette, 94-1075 at pp. 4-5, 653 So.2d at 82 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Armstrong