885 So. 2d 641 - State v. Lewis’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. “An identification procedure is suggestive if, during the procedure, the witness' attention is unduly focused on the relator. State v. Robinson, 386 So.2d 1374, 1377 (La. 1980). Moreover, a relator 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. Valentine, 570 So.2d 533 (La. App, 4 Cir.1990). The Supreme Court has held that even if the identification could be considered suggestive, it is the likelihood of misidentification that violates due process, not merely the suggestive identification procedure. State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673 (La.9/8/99); 750 So.2d 916, 932 . 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). Even a suggestive, out-of-court identification will be admissible if it is found reliable under the totality of circumstances. State v. Guy, 95-0899 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/31/96) , 669 So.2d 517 . If a suggestive identification procedure has been proved, a reviewing court must look to several factors to determine, from the totality of the circumstances, whether the suggestive identification presents a substantial likelihood of misidentification at trial. State v. Martin, 595 So.2d 592, 595 (La.1992). The U.S. Supreme Court has set ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 So. 3d 320 - State v. Quinn · 66 So. 3d 1207 - State v. Williams

2. “[Tlhe mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to prove guilty knowledge, and the Commonwealth must introduce other evidence ... that demonstrates that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.”

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

3. “Mere possession of stolen property does not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with the knowledge that it was stolen ....”

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