per se exclusionary rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

per se exclusionary rule in Texas

9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2022 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Rock v. Arkansasgreen
scotus · 1987 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Rock, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (holding a per se exclusionary rule banning hypnotically refreshed testimony of defendants testifying on their own behalf unconstitutional under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution).

2004See Rock, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (holding a per se exclusionary rule banning hypnotically refreshed testimony of defendants testifying on their own behalf unconstitutional under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution).

22
Neil v. Biggersgreen
scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Perry, 565 U.S. at 724. 8 Rather, we are “to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether improper police conduct created a ‘substantial likelihood of misidentification.’” Id. (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 201 (1972)).

11
Webb v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003Trial courts should perform the balancing test set out in Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236, 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). 34 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Manson v. Brathwaite green
scotus · 1977
2 sentences

1988However, in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), the Supreme Court, in rejecting a per se exclusionary rule, de termined that reliability is the central issue in ascertaining the admissibility of identification testimony.

1988However, in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977), the Supreme Court, in rejecting a per se exclusionary rule, de termined that reliability is the central issue in ascertaining the admissibility of identification testimony.

41980–1988
Contreras v. State green
alaska · 1986
2 sentences

2004Ibid.

2004Ibid.

12004–2004
Munguia v. State green
texcrimapp · 1980
1 sentence

1985This sentiment was adopted by *721 the court in Munguia v. State, 603 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).

11985–1985
State v. Hurd green
nj · 1981
2 sentences

1984However, in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 , 432 A.2d 86 (1981) (i.e. the guideline approach), the court reached a contrary conclusion and rejected the per se exclusionary rule.

1984However, in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 , 432 A.2d 86 (1981) (i.e. the guideline approach), the court reached a contrary conclusion and rejected the per se exclusionary rule.

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

MO 21 (1970–1992) MI 18 (1969–2023) MD 18 (1968–2026) PA 18 (1973–2019) IA 14 (1973–2021) MA 12 (1974–2022) GA 12 (1971–1991) TN 11 (1972–2003) NY 10 (1978–2013) TX 9 (1980–2022) MS 9 (1968–2007) IL 8 (1972–2026) CT 7 (1979–2022) RI 7 (1973–1999) LA 6 (1989–2012) CO 6 (1973–2019) OH 5 (1969–2007) IN 5 (1972–2017) MN 5 (1974–2009) DC 5 (1978–1993) WI 5 (1974–2020) FL 4 (1975–1989) WV 4 (1978–2013) CA 4 (1977–2013) OK 3 (1972–1985) NM 3 (1975–2020) ME 3 (1972–1993) NC 3 (1972–1991) ID 3 (1973–1996) UT 2 (1994–2020) KS 2 (1984–2000) AK 2 (1974–1980)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check