State v. Elliston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he required inquiry is made on an ad hoc basis and is two-pronged: first, it must be determined whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive; and second, if it is found to have been so, it must be determined whether the identification was nevertheless reliable based on examination of the totality of the circumstances.... Therefore, [t]he critical question ... is what makes a particular identification procedure suggestive enough to require the court to proceed to the second prong and to consider the overall reliability of the identification.... In deciding [the first prong] ... the entire procedure, viewed in light of the factual circumstances of the individual case ... must be examined to determine if a particular identification is tainted by unnecessary suggestiveness.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 329 - State v. Kukucka · 170 Conn. App. 768 - State v. Patterson

2. “Upon review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, [t]he court's conclusions will not be disturbed unless they are legally and logically inconsistent with the facts.... [W]e will reverse the trial court's ruling [on evidence] only where there is abuse of discretion or where an injustice has occurred ... and we will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling.... Because the issue of the reliability of an identification involves the constitutional rights of an accused ... we are obliged to examine the record scrupulously to determine whether the facts found are adequately supported by the evidence and whether the court's ultimate inference of reliability was reasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 329 - State v. Kukucka · 170 Conn. App. 768 - State v. Patterson

3. “The use of a single photograph for identification purposes is not overly suggestive per se.... It is, however, absent exigent circumstances, almost always unnecessarily and impermissibly suggestive.... The danger of misidentification of a suspect by a witness is increased where the photograph of an individual is in some way emphasized.... Showing a witness a single photograph rather than an array of photographs obviously emphasizes that photograph.... Any one-to-one type [of] confrontation between a witness or victim and a person whom the police present to him as a suspect must necessarily convey the message that the police have reason to believe that person guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Conn. App. 329 - State v. Kukucka