State v. Medrano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court having reviewed what appears to be the only case on hypnotically-enhanced testimony, the Zani case.... After reviewing the standards in that case, the Court is now going to grant the motion to suppress the in-court identification based upon the Zani standards. I have weighed the factors in the case and believe that the in-court identification should be suppressed. In weighing the factors for admissibility as set out in [the Zani ] case, there are two compelling reasons for the decision to hold the hypnotically-enhanced eyewitness testimony as inadmissable in this case. The most important is the lack of any evidence to corroborate that testimony. In Zani, fingerprints were found at the scene of the defendant who was identified by the hypnotically-enhanced testimony. The hypnosis session here occurred one day after the incident with no explanation from law enforcement as to why and to what extent there was a memory loss. In Zani, the hypnosis session occurred 13 years after the incident. The defendant had left the jurisdiction and was not apprehended for 13 years, and at that time, the young eyewitness was hypnotized to see if there was any recall for the identification. The identification in that case did coincide with the fingerprints. They were one in the same.”

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

2. “On the 3rd and 20th day of October, 1997, came on to be heard the Defendant’s Motions to Suppress Photographic Identification and In-Court Identification. After considering the ■ evidence and argument of counsel and for the reasons stated on the record October 21, 1997, the Court hereby grants said Motions. The Court also finds said identification was obtained in violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 9, 10, 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution.”

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

3. “We find that, although the trial court framed her order to conclude that constitutional provisions had been violated, her findings were the result of a balancing test conducted under Texas Rule of Evidence 403.... Thus, although constitutional implications may be present in this decision, we find it was not a “suppression” in the sense contemplated by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 44.01(a)(5) and the case law interpreting it.”

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