green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 ·
…the credibility of a witness and weight of his testimony are for the trier of fact alone.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. King
But see United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.) (holding “that the Biggers analysis applies to ... in-court identifications for the same reasons that the analysis applies to impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identifications”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). *375 The court in Domina explained the differences between initial pretrial and in-court identifications that justify different treatment in determining their admissibility: The concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that the witness later identifies the person …
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mitchell v. Maynard
the credibility of a witness and weight of his testimony are for the trier of fact alone.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mitchell v. Maynard
the credibility of a witness and weight of his testimony are for the trier of fact alone.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Campbell
See United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 230 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 438 , 121 L.Ed.2d 357 (1992); Summitt v. Bordenkircher, 608 F.2d 247, 253 (6th Cir.1979); Johnson, 344 F.Supp.2d at 1090 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Evans
See People v. Roberts, 2 Cal. 4th 271, 291 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992) (statute); Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 943 (1988) (statute and court rule); Palmer v. State, 155 Ga. App. 368 (1980) (State Constitution); Lee v. Commonwealth, 262 Ky. 15 (1935) (statute); People v. Mallory, 421 Mich. 229 (1984) (statute); People v. Smith, 195 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. 1993) (statute); Colletti v. State, 12 Ohio App. 104 (1919) (statute); Jones v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 425, 428 (1984) (statute).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Briscoe
(People v. Gardner, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 479 ; see People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 321 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 , 826 P.2d 274 ], cert. den. 506 U.S. 964 [ 113 S.Ct. 436 , 121 L.Ed.2d 356 ]; see also People v. Cervantes, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 871-872 [proximate cause is typically jury question].) B.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Killingsworth
See -4- United States v. Hager , 969 F.2d 883, 888-89 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 964 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Plaintiff--Defendant. v. Bryan Lee Killingsworth
See United States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888-89 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 437 , 121 L.Ed.2d 357 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Peach
See United States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Patterson
See also People v. Roberts , 2 Cal.4th 271 , 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 , 826 P.2d 274 , 291-292 (1992), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 436 , 121 L.Ed.2d 356 (1992), citing People v. Mallory , 421 Mich. 229 , 365 N.W.2d 673 , 683 (1984) (agreeing with the Supreme Court of Michigan's 2 holding that a court may "exercise *1226 discretion to require the restraining of a defendant at a jury view outside the courtroom 'on the basis of ... other manifest circumstances.' ").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Crayton
See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992) (admissibility of first-time in-court identification should be evaluated by same constitutional standard as pretrial identification, but even if it were impermis-sibly suggestive, it was reliable under totality of circumstances and therefore did not violate due process); United States v. Rundell, 858 F.2d 425, 426-427 (8th Cir. 1988) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Horton, 06ap-311 (8-23-2007)
See, also, Sorrell v. Thevenir (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 415 , 422-423 , citing Direct Plumbing *Page 7 Supply Co. v. Dayton (1941), 138 Ohio St. 540 , 544 (stating that the "[t]he `due course of law' provision [in Section 16 , Article I , of the Ohio Constitution] is the equivalent of the `due process of law' provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"); Peebles v. Clement (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 314 , 317 . {¶ 16} "Before identification testimony is suppressed, the trial court must find that the procedure employed was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hitchcock
The court held that “where the Navy provides backup support in a Coast Guard operation and does not participate in the search of the ship or the arrest and interrogation of the *1229 suspects, the military assistance is not direct, not an exercise of military power, and not pervasive of the activities of civilian authorities.” Id. at 432; see also United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1478 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 436 , 121 L.Ed.2d 356 (1992) (where Coast Guard did actual boarding, arrest, interrogation and ensuing investigation of all criminal matters…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Walker
Even assuming that Walker’s sandals and untucked shirt were unnecessarily suggestive, these procedures did not result in unreliable identifications under the “totality of the circumstances.” Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ; see also United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 226, 232 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 438 , 121 L.Ed.2d 357 (1992) (once defendant proves impermissibly suggestive identification procedure, court will determine overall reliability of identification).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. David E. Graika
See, e.g., United States v. Wolf, 90 F.3d 191, 194 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Bentley ); United States v. Severson, 3 F.3d 1005, 1013 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Shue ); see also United States v. Flood, 965 F.2d 505 (7th Cir.) (holding that resentencing on affirmed count after sentence on another count vacated was appropriate), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992). 8 For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this order. * After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary, a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cirilo Mendoza
See also United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1475 (11th Cir.) (suggestion by law enforcement that defendant might suffer while serving long prison sentence did not make ensuing statement involuntary), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 (1992); United States v. Nash, 910 F.2d 749, 752-53 (11th Cir. 1990) (officer's discussion of realistic penalties for cooperative and non- cooperative defendants did not make defendant's confession involuntary); United States v. Meirovitz, 918 F.2d 1376, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990) (agents' threats of long prison sentence if defendant failed to cooperate did not m…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cirilo Mendoza, United States of America v. Cirilo Mendoza, Martha Wheeler
(2×)
See also United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467, 1475 (11th Cir.) (suggestion by law enforcement that defendant might suffer while serving long prison sentence did not make ensuing statement involuntary), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 436 , 121 L.Ed.2d 356 (1992); United States v. Nash, 910 F.2d 749, 752-53 (11th Cir.1990) (officer’s discussion of realistic penalties for cooperative and non-cooperative defendants did not make defendant’s confession involuntary); United States v. Meirovitz, 918 F.2d 1376, 1379 (8th Cir.1990) (agents’ threats of long prison sentence if de…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Larry Dwight Jaynes and April Marie Jaynes
See, e.g., United States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 964 , 113 S.Ct. 437 , 121 L.Ed.2d 357 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Singleton
v.
Norris, Acting Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
v.
Norris, Acting Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
No. 92-6000.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 2, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (2)
C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.