green
Positive treatment
13.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Orlando F.
In support of this contention, the defendant, in effect, asserts that the suggestiveness issues that arise when an eyewitness makes an identification of a defendant for the first time in court; see State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 446 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grant v. Commissioner of Correction (Dissent)
See generally State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016) (discussing potential that in-court identifications may be tainted by sugges- tive out-of-court identifications), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Torres
See State v. Torres, 175 Conn. App. 138, 154 , 167 A.3d 365 (2017) (reversing defendant’s convic- tion because witness made suggestive in-court identification, contrary to State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 453 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Knox
See State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 450 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016) (new constitutional rules of criminal procedure must be applied in future trials and cases pending on direct review), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Purcell
See State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 , 426 n.11, 141 A.3d 810 (2016) (‘‘it is well established that courts have the duty not only to craft remedies for actual constitutional violations, but also to craft prophylactic constitutional rules to prevent the significant risk of a constitutional violation’’ [emphasis omitted]), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Purcell
See State v. Dickson , 322 Conn. 410 , 426 n.11, 141 A.3d 810 (2016) ("it is well established that courts have the duty not only to craft remedies for actual constitutional violations, but also to craft prophylactic constitutional rules to prevent the significant risk of a constitutional violation" [emphasis omitted] ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2263 , 198 L.Ed.2d 713 (2017) ; see also C.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bethea
See State v. Dickson , 322 Conn. 410 , 426, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2263 , 198 L.Ed.2d 713 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Harris
See [e.g.] **101 Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228 , 248, 132 S.Ct. 716 , 181 L.Ed. 2d 694 (2012)...." *126 State v. Dickson , 322 Conn. 410 , 419, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2263 , 198 L.Ed.2d 713 (2017)."A different standard applies when the defendant contends that an in-court identification followed an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure that was conducted by a state actor.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Amias I.
Under such circumstances, it would be a waste of judi- cial resources, and a pedantic exercise, to delve deeply into the constitutional merits of a claim that can appro- priately be resolved in accordance with the relevant harmless error analysis.’’ (Citations omitted.)); see also State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 497 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016) (Robinson, J., concurring) (‘‘[t]his court often applies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance not to decide difficult questions of constitutional law when the state has established that any constitutional error will not affect the result of the ap…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Armadore
See, e.g., State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 , 449–51, 141 A.3d 810 (2016) (applying new rule regarding first time, in-court identifications to pending cases under Griffith), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fidencio VERDIN-GARCIA, Adan Molina, and Miguel Romero
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 16–6786..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 19, 2017.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.