Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the opportunity of the witness to view the accused at the time of the crime; (2) the degree of attention exhibited by the witness; (3) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty exhibited by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of the time between the crime and the confrontation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 962 So. 2d 110 - Young v. State

2. “Thompson , 726 So.2d at 236 (¶ 17) (citing Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 , 688 , 92 S.Ct. 1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972)). Under the United States Supreme Court's interpretation, formal adversarial proceedings may be initiated by”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 962 So. 2d 110 - Young v. State

3. “When determining whether to suppress evidence of a pre-trial identification, the trial court must resolve whether the identification procedure used by law enforcement was unnecessarily suggestive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 927 So. 2d 768 - Duhart v. State