939 So. 2d 462 - State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant challenging an identification procedure must prove that the identification was suggestive and there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification as a result of the identification process. State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 932 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1112 , 120 S.Ct. 1969 , 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000). It is the likelihood of misidentification that violates due process, not the mere existence of suggestiveness. State v. Hurd, 05-258 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/29/05), 917 So.2d 567, 570 . 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); State v. Hurd, 917 So.2d at 570 . Factors to consider in assessing the reliability of an identification include: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, (2) the witness' degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation. Manson v. Brathwaite, 97 S.Ct. at 2253 . Generally, one-on-one identifications are not favored. However, such an identification procedure is permissible under certain circumstances. For example, one-on-one identifications are justified when the accused is apprehended within a relatively short period of time after the occurrence of”

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