State v. Folkerts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Stovall v. Denno , the United States Supreme Court condemned the practice of singly, and not as part of a lineup, showing suspects to witnesses for identification purposes. 388 U.S. 293 , 302 , 87 S. Ct. 1967 , 1972 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199 , 1206 (1967). When unnecessarily suggestive pretrial out-of-court identification procedures conducive to mistaken identification that are incapable of repair are used, the Due Process Clause requires exclusion of the testimony of the identification. Id. at 301-02 , 87 S. Ct. at 1972 -73 , 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1206 . The Supreme Court stated, however, that the totality of the circumstances must be examined to determine if a defendant's due process rights were violated as a result of the identification procedure. Id. at 302 , 87 S. Ct. at 1972 , 18 L. Ed. 2d at 1206 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. David Paul Douglass · Losey v. State

2. “The first part of the analysis requires the court to decide whether the identification procedure was in fact impermissibly suggestive. Second, if the court finds the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, then the court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, an identification made by the witness at the time of trial is irreparably tainted.”

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

3. “to be present at the deposition of an eyewitness when it is likely an impermissibly suggestive identification would take place.”

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