Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 802 F.2d 34 - Jarrett v. Headley

Jarrett v. Headley’s Empirical Analysis

802 F.2d 34 · 1986

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
7
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably United States v. Salameh (1998), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

39019861990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Sumner v. Mata

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

  1. “'suggest to an identifying witness that [that person] was more likely to be the culprit'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where the pretrial identification procedures used with a given witness have been impermissibly suggestive, a later in-court identification by that witness will violate due process unless the in-court identification is shown to have reliability independent of those procedures .... On the other hand, if the procedures were not impermissibly suggestive, independent reliability is not a constitutionally required condition of admissibility, ... and the reliability of the identification is simply a question for the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “police suggestiveness does not require the suppression of an identification if the witness was not thereby influenced, as, for example, when the witness's identification was already positive.”
    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.