81 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Loserth v. Stategreen2 sentences2022We “consider the five Biggers factors, which are all issues of historical fact, deferentially in a light favorable to the trial court’s ruling.” Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Tex. Crim. 2022Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 774 . i. Biggers Factors Our analysis of three of the Biggers factors that overlap with the Wade factors remains the same: Salinas had a relatively close and unobstructed view of Rebollar for an indeterminate period of time, Salinas’s description of the shooter he observed matched Rebollar’s actual description, and Salinas paid close attention to his surroundings during 17 the shooting. | 23 | 35 |
Neil v. Biggersgreen2 sentences2020Id. (referring to these factors, established by Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972), as the “Biggers factors”). 2014See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199–200, 93 S. Ct. at 382 ; see also Brown v. State, 29 S.W.3d 251 , 254–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying Wade and Biggers factors). | 16 | 31 |
Ibarra v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Here, a review of the Biggers factors show that the procedure did not increase the likelihood of irreparable misidentification at trial: (1) the witness testified that he engaged the suspect for five or six minutes, which prior courts have held is plenty of time to view the suspect, see Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 252 ; Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 196 ; (2) although the witness was watching a movie, there is no mandatory assumption that the witness was not paying attention when the suspect conversed with him, and it is highly unlikely the witness was not paying attention when being robbed at knifepoint late 2014Here, a review of the Biggers factors show that the procedure did not increase the likelihood of irreparable misidentification at trial: (1) the witness testified that he engaged the suspect for five or six minutes, which prior courts have held is plenty of time to view the suspect, see Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 252 ; Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 196 ; (2) although the witness was watching a movie, there is no mandatory assumption that the witness was not paying attention when the suspect conversed with him, and it is highly unlikely the witness was not paying attention when being robbed at knifepoint late | 6 | 21 |
Barley v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 35 n. 8. 1 Only two of the Biggers factors are not covered by Wade ; these are the second factor, the witness’s degree of attention, and the fourth factor, the level of certainty at the time of confrontation. 2000See Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 35 n. 8. 1 Only two of the Biggers factors are not covered by Wade ; these are the second factor, the witness’s degree of attention, and the fourth factor, the level of certainty at the time of confrontation. | 2 | 6 |
Balderas v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Balderas, 517 S.W.3d at 792 (naming Biggers factors). 2020Id. (referring to these factors, established by Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972), as the “Biggers factors”). | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Brown , 64 S.W.3d at 101 . 2010Brown , 64 S.W.3d at 101 . | 2 | 3 |
Webb v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See id.; see also Webb v. State , 760 S.W.2d 263, 269 (Tex. Crim. 1999Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); see also Brathwaite, swpra; Webb, supra. We consider the five Biggers factors, all issues of historical fact, deferentially in a light favorable to the trial court’s ruling. | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Brown, 29 S.W.3d at 254–55; Barley, 906 S.W.2d at 35 n.8. 2014See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199–200, 93 S. Ct. at 382 ; see also Brown v. State, 29 S.W.3d 251 , 254–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying Wade and Biggers factors). | 1 | 2 |
Luna v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594, 605 (Tex. Crim. 2011See Luna, 268 S.W.3d at 605 . | 1 | 2 |
Shaun Adrian Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Jackson, 530 S.W.3d at 744 . 2021See Jackson, 530 S.W.3d at 744 . | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 ; Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 772 ; see also Hamilton, 300 S.W.3d at 18 ; Santos, 116 S.W.3d at 451 . 2020See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 ; Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 772 ; see also Hamilton, 300 S.W.3d at 18 ; Santos, 116 S.W.3d at 451 . | 1 | 1 |
Lagunas v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Lagunas v. State, 187 S.W.3d 503 , 522 n.24 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref’d) (rejecting defendant’s argument that Biggers' s "totality of the circumstances” standard should apply to factual sufficiency of the evidence). 2017See Lagunas v. State, 187 S.W.3d 503 , 522 n.24 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref’d) (rejecting defendant’s argument that Biggers' s "totality of the circumstances” standard should apply to factual sufficiency of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Brodes v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“We recognize that scientific research relating to the reliability of eyewitness evidence is dynamic; the field is very different today than it was in 1977. . . [courts and police] must rely on reliable scientific evidence that is generally accepted by experts in the community.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 292 , (2011); see also State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 780 (Utah 1991) (expanding reliability factors to consider where “several of the criteria listed by the [Supreme] Court are based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by well-respected and essentially unchallenged empirical | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See generally Williams v. State, 243 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d) (considering identification of a suspect from the back of a police vehicle to be suggestive), and see generally State v. Dubose, 699 N.W.2d 582 , 285 Wis.2d 143, 167 (Wis. 2005) (holding that “[s]howups conducted in police stations, squad cars, or with the suspect in handcuffs that are visible to any witness, all carry with them inferences of guilt, and thus should be considered suggestive.”) Addressing the Biggers factors, the first inquiry is the opportunity the witness had to observe the suspect. 2015See generally Williams v. State, 243 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d) (considering identification of a suspect from the back of a police vehicle to be suggestive), and see generally State v. Dubose, 699 N.W.2d 582 , 285 Wis.2d 143, 167 (Wis. 2005) (holding that “[s]howups conducted in police stations, squad cars, or with the suspect in handcuffs that are visible to any witness, all carry with them inferences of guilt, and thus should be considered suggestive.”) Addressing the Biggers factors, the first inquiry is the opportunity the witness had to observe the suspect. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huntgreen1 sentence2015“We recognize that scientific research relating to the reliability of eyewitness evidence is dynamic; the field is very different today than it was in 1977. . . [courts and police] must rely on reliable scientific evidence that is generally accepted by experts in the community.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 292 , (2011); see also State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 780 (Utah 1991) (expanding reliability factors to consider where “several of the criteria listed by the [Supreme] Court are based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by well-respected and essentially unchallenged empirical | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2015“We recognize that scientific research relating to the reliability of eyewitness evidence is dynamic; the field is very different today than it was in 1977. . . [courts and police] must rely on reliable scientific evidence that is generally accepted by experts in the community.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 292 , (2011); see also State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 780 (Utah 1991) (expanding reliability factors to consider where “several of the criteria listed by the [Supreme] Court are based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by well-respected and essentially unchallenged empirical | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dubosered2 sentences2015See generally Williams v. State, 243 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d) (considering identification of a suspect from the back of a police vehicle to be suggestive), and see generally State v. Dubose, 699 N.W.2d 582 , 285 Wis.2d 143, 167 (Wis. 2005) (holding that “[s]howups conducted in police stations, squad cars, or with the suspect in handcuffs that are visible to any witness, all carry with them inferences of guilt, and thus should be considered suggestive.”) Addressing the Biggers factors, the first inquiry is the opportunity the witness had to observe the suspect. 2015See generally Williams v. State, 243 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, pet. ref’d) (considering identification of a suspect from the back of a police vehicle to be suggestive), and see generally State v. Dubose, 699 N.W.2d 582 , 285 Wis.2d 143, 167 (Wis. 2005) (holding that “[s]howups conducted in police stations, squad cars, or with the suspect in handcuffs that are visible to any witness, all carry with them inferences of guilt, and thus should be considered suggestive.”) Addressing the Biggers factors, the first inquiry is the opportunity the witness had to observe the suspect. | 1 | 1 |
Cantu v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Here, a review of the Biggers factors show that the procedure did not increase the likelihood of irreparable misidentification at trial: (1) the witness testified that he engaged the suspect for five or six minutes, which prior courts have held is plenty of time to view the suspect, see Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 252 ; Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 196 ; (2) although the witness was watching a movie, there is no mandatory assumption that the witness was not paying attention when the suspect conversed with him, and it is highly unlikely the witness was not paying attention when being robbed at knifepoint late 2014Here, a review of the Biggers factors show that the procedure did not increase the likelihood of irreparable misidentification at trial: (1) the witness testified that he engaged the suspect for five or six minutes, which prior courts have held is plenty of time to view the suspect, see Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 252 ; Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 196 ; (2) although the witness was watching a movie, there is no mandatory assumption that the witness was not paying attention when the suspect conversed with him, and it is highly unlikely the witness was not paying attention when being robbed at knifepoint late | 1 | 1 |
Loserth v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 774 . - 13 - 04-11-00422-CR “A review of the cases which consider the question of impermissibly suggestive photographs shows that a clear majority have ultimately affirmed the conviction even though the photographs were used as a part of the State’s case.” Loserth, 985 S.W.2d at 545 . 2013Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 774 . - 13 - 04-11-00422-CR “A review of the cases which consider the question of impermissibly suggestive photographs shows that a clear majority have ultimately affirmed the conviction even though the photographs were used as a part of the State’s case.” Loserth, 985 S.W.2d at 545 . | 1 | 1 |
Burkett v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Burkett v. State , 127 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 2010Burkett v. State , 127 S.W.3d 83, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Goldberg v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jimenez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Madden v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnigan v. State
green
2 sentences2006Johnigan , 69 S.W.3d at 754 . 2003Johnigan , 69 S.W.3d at 754 . | 5 | 2002–2006 |
Guzman v. State
green
2 sentences2018The factors, viewed in this light, should then be weighed de novo against ‘the corrupting effect’ of the suggestive pretrial identification procedure.” Id. at 773–74; see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)). 2001Id. | 2 | 2001–2018 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
2 sentences1982In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967) implicitly approved was the proposition that “the practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification ... has been widely condemned,” and properly so, id., U.S. at 302. 2 In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)—a pre-Stovall “showup” seven months after the offense — and Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)—a single photograph viewed two days later — identification was tested by Biggers factors, which are outlined by the ma 1982In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967) implicitly approved was the proposition that “the practice of showing suspects singly to persons for the purpose of identification ... has been widely condemned,” and properly so, id., U.S. at 302. 2 In Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972)—a pre-Stovall “showup” seven months after the offense — and Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977)—a single photograph viewed two days later — identification was tested by Biggers factors, which are outlined by the ma | 2 | 1982–2004 |
Manson v. Brathwaite
green
2 sentences1996In Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), the Court adopted the Biggers factors, but emphasized that “The standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 113. 1996In Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), the Court adopted the Biggers factors, but emphasized that “The standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 113. | 2 | 1982–1996 |
Santos v. State
green
2 sentences2020See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 ; Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 772 ; see also Hamilton, 300 S.W.3d at 18 ; Santos, 116 S.W.3d at 451 . 2020See Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 ; Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 772 ; see also Hamilton, 300 S.W.3d at 18 ; Santos, 116 S.W.3d at 451 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Perry v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences2016In considering the five factors, we note that Wendy testified that her eyes followed the gunman the entire time he was in the apartment, and she was focused on him throughout the 116 See Perry, 132 S. Ct. at 728 . 117 Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 773 . 118 Id. at 774 . 119 Id. at 773-74 . 2016In considering the five factors, we note that Wendy testified that her eyes followed the gunman the entire time he was in the apartment, and she was focused on him throughout the 116 See Perry, 132 S. Ct. at 728 . 117 Loserth, 963 S.W.2d at 773 . 118 Id. at 774 . 119 Id. at 773-74 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2015“We recognize that scientific research relating to the reliability of eyewitness evidence is dynamic; the field is very different today than it was in 1977. . . [courts and police] must rely on reliable scientific evidence that is generally accepted by experts in the community.” State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 292 , (2011); see also State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774, 780 (Utah 1991) (expanding reliability factors to consider where “several of the criteria listed by the [Supreme] Court are based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by well-respected and essentially unchallenged empirical | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Wade
green
1 sentence2014See Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 195 ; see also Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199–200, 93 S. Ct. at 382 ; Wade, 388 U.S. at 241 , 87 S. Ct. at 1940 ; Brown, 29 S.W.3d at 254–55. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rosario Joseph Dispensa v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 220 . 2013Id. at 220 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Herrera v. State
green
2 sentences2013Herrera, 682 S.W.2d at 318 ; Loserth, 985 S.W.2d at 548 . 2013Herrera, 682 S.W.2d at 318 ; Loserth, 985 S.W.2d at 548 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Sumner v. Mata green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| DeParias v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.