9 Md. App. 628 - Billinger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . .. [I]t is not improper for the police promptly to display a freshly apprehended suspect for identification by one who minutes before had been the victim of or an eyewitness to the commission of a crime.... Of course the confrontation in the present case would be illegal, independent of the right to counsel, if it was conducted in such manner as to deny due process of law. And it would violate due process of law if it were so unnecessarily suggestive as to be conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. But although a single-suspect or one-on-one confrontation may be suggestive, we believe that prompt on the scene confrontations, absent special elements of unfairness, do not entail due process violations. ” Id. 9 Md. App. at 636, 267 A. 2d at 280 . (Emphasis supplied.) “ ... We see no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification in this confrontation. On the contrary the police action fostered ‘the desirable objectives of fresh, accurate identification which in some instances may lead to the immediate release of an innocent suspect and at the same time enable the police to resume the search for the fleeing culprit while the trail is fresh.’ Bates v. United States, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 36, 405 F. 2d 1104 (1968) at 1106.” Id. 9 Md. App. at 636-37, 267 A. 2d at 280 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Foster & Forster v. State