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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Dickson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Dickson Anchor | green | “do not doubt either the importance or the fallibility of eyewitness identifications.” | 3 |
| 2 | Garner v. People | green | “a small minority of courts have applied biggers to first-time in-court identifications since perry was decided” | 3 |
| 3 | Garner v. People | green | “and where nothing beyond the inherent suggestiveness of the ordinary courtroom setting made the in- court identification itself constitutionally suspect, due process does not require the trial court to assess the identification for reliability under biggers.” | 3 |
| 4 | Garner v. People | green | “pre-lineup or showup description and defendant's actual description,” | 3 |
| 5 | Kahler v. Kansas | green | “the question is whether a rule of criminal responsibility is so old and venerable-so entrenched in the central values of our legal system-as to prevent a state from ever choosing another.” | 3 |
| 6 | Robert Walden v. David Shinn | green | “if the police did not arrange suggestive circumstances leading the witness to identify a particular person as the perpetrator, the inquiry ends.” | 3 |
| 7 | People v. Carey | green | “is sufficient evidence to jury of any single fact” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.