Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2016As explained above, this inquiry requires a weighing of the five non-exclusive factors established by Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 . 2016As explained above, this inquiry requires a weighing of the five non-exclusive factors established by Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 . | 12 | 24 |
Loserth v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“The underlying Biggers factors are, taken individually, historical facts and, as such, should be viewed deferentially.” Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 773 . 2016"The underlying Biggers factors are, taken individually, historical facts and, as such, should be viewed deferentially.” Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 773 . | 7 | 12 |
Ibarra v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 2018The following five non-exclusive factors should be weighed against the corrupting effect of any suggestive identification procedure in assessing reliability under the totality of the circumstances: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation[;] and (5) the length of time between the crime and confrontation. 10 Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. | 6 | 12 |
Luna v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594, 605 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)(identifying the following five non-exclusive factors in assessing reliability and recognizing that they should be weighed against the corrupting effect of a suggestive identification: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation). 2013Id. (citing Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 195 ). | 3 | 4 |
Manson v. Brathwaitegreen2 sentences2018App. 1999) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977); Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 ). 2003Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also Brathwaite, supra; Webb, supra. We consider the five Biggers factors, all issues of historical fact, deferentially in a light favorable to the trial court = s ruling. | 1 | 3 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also Brathwaite, supra; Webb, supra. We consider the five Biggers factors, all issues of historical fact, deferentially in a light favorable to the trial court = s ruling. 2001See Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)); Webb v. State, 760 S.W.2d 263, 269 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (citing Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)). | 1 | 3 |
Balderas v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 792 ; Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 195 . | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence2008An in-court identification is inadmissible when it has been tainted by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic identification.31 The test is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, “the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” 32 Reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.33 The following five non-exclusive factors should be “weighed against the corrupting effect of any 29 Roberts v. State, 220 S.W.3d 521, 531 ( | 1 | 1 |
Loserth v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Loserth , 985 S.W.2d at 543 , citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375, 382 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simmons v. United States
green
1 sentence2016Id. (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Barley v. State
green
1 sentence2015Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 34-35 . 18 Regarding the first and second factors, Reliford had a good opportunity to view appellant during the criminal act and he focused a high level of attention on appellant at the time of murder. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Roberts v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008App.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 282 (2007). 30 Id. 31 Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. 2008App.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 282 (2007). 30 Id. 31 Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 195 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.