Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Junius, 242 So. 2d 533.
-
State v. Picot
482 So. 2d 771
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
(1971), where we held that the accused’s privilege against self-incrimination was not offended when he was compelled to exhibit an identifying scar to a witness at trial, and from Wilson and Francis, supra, where we upheld the state’s right to compel the accused to expose an identifying tatoo on his ar
- State v. Simms 341 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
-
State v. Anthony
332 So. 2d 214
La. 1976
(1971), where we held that the accused's privilege against self-incrimination was not offended when he was compelled to exhibit an identifying scar to a witness at trial, and from Wilson and Francis, supra, where we upheld the state's right to compel the accused to expose an identifying tatoo on his ar
-
State v. Wilson
329 So. 2d 680
La. 1976
(1971), where we held that the accused's privilege against self-incrimination was not violated when he was compelled to exhibit an identifying scar to a witness at trial.
-
State v. O'CONNER
320 So. 2d 188
La. 1975
679 , 21 L.Ed.2d 691 , compulsory extraction of blood samples; , (1970), accused forced to reveal scar on arm; State v. Roy, 220 La.
- State v. Hicks 301 So. 2d 357 La. 1974
- State v. Franklin 279 So. 2d 163 La. 1973
- State v. Chaney 273 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
-
State v. Odom
273 So. 2d 261
La. 1973
After careful consideration of this bill, , (1970), where, in a similar, in-court identification situation, we said: "We find no error under the circumstances shown.
-
State v. Anderson
259 So. 2d 310
La. 1972
(1971), we stated: “The cited decisions do indeed hold that there may be a denial of due process of law if, judged by the totality of circumstances, the identification procedures are unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification — ‘so impermissibly suggestive as to
- State v. Bland 255 So. 2d 723 La. 1971
- State v. Morris 254 So. 2d 444 La. 1971
- State v. Amphy 249 So. 2d 560 La. 1971