Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he identification of a defendant must comport with the standards of due process. If an out-of-court identification procedure was unduly suggestive, then the testimony relating to it is inadmissible. In essence, this court must determine whether, under the totality of the cireumstances, the identification process was conducted in such a manner that it created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Our supreme court has held that a photo array is impermissibly suggestive only where the array is accompanied by verbal communications or the photographs in the display include graphic characteristics that distinguish and emphasize the defendant's photograph in an unusually suggestive manner. When analyzing the propriety of the pre-trial identification procedure here, the first issue we must address is whether the out-of-court procedure was conducted in a fashion that led the witness to make a mistaken identification. If it is unduly suggestive, we then address the second question, which is whether the witness had an independent basis for the in-court identification so as to make it admissible.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dillard v. State · Lewis v. State

2. “[A] defendant has a right to present evidence tending to show that someone other than the accused committed the charged crime.”

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

3. “Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349, 361 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trams. denied. The exclusion of such evidence by the trial court”

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