792 So. 2d 931 - State v. Egana’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2003
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant who seeks to suppress an identification must prove both that the identification itself was suggestive and that there was a likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification procedure. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 738 (1984); State v. Payne, 00-1171 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/13/00) , 777 So.2d 555, 558-559 . Fairness is the standard of review for identification procedures, and reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2253 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). The factors to be considered in assessing reliability, as set out in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), are: 1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) the witness’ degree of attention; 3) the accuracy of the prior description of the criminal; 4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and, 5) the time between the crime and the confrontation. See also, Manson v. Brathwaite, supra. In evaluating the defendant’s argument, the reviewing court may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at the trial, as well as at the hearing on the motion to suppress the identification. State v. Clennon, 98-1370 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/30/99) , 738 So.2d 161, 164 . A trial court’s determination of the admissibility of an identification should be accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence reveals an abuse of di”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.