847 So. 2d 653 - State v. Haynes’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. “A defendant who seeks to suppress an identification must prove both that the identification itself was suggestive and that a likelihood of misidentification existed as a result of the identification procedure. State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 738 (La.1984) State v. Valentine, 570 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990). One-on-one confrontations between the suspect and the victim, while not favored by law, are generally permissible when the accused is apprehended within a short time after the offense and is returned to the scene of the crime for an- on-the-spot identification. State v. Robinson, 404 So.2d_[¿907, 909-910 (La.1-981). Such a process assures reliability and fosters prompt release of innocent suspects. Id.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ashford · 867 So. 2d 835 - State v. Ford

2. “[a] trial judge's determination on the admissibility of an identification should be accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the evidence reveals an abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 867 So. 2d 835 - State v. Ford · 977 So. 2d 1074 - State v. Stovall