DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Chapman, 436 So. 2d 451.

17 citing documents.

  • State v. Vicks 798 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    -709 (La.1981), appeal after remand , where the court explained that: At trial, the victim testified that she was in the hospital following the rape when she was shown defendant [emphasis added] and immediately recognized him as her assailant.
  • State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in its recitation of evidence introduced at trial that the defendant presented the testimony of an expert concerning studies which tended to discredit the accuracy of eyewitness identifications generally, but the admissibility of that expert testimony was not an issue on a
  • State v. Washington 793 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in its recitation of evidence introduced at trial that the defendant presented the testimony of an expert concerning studies which tended to discredit the accuracy of eyewitness identifications generally, but the admissibility of that expert testimony was not an issue on a
  • State v. Wright 741 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    However, the relationship “must be closely scrutinized.” appeal after remand
  • State v. Bunch 695 So. 2d 1341 La. 1997
    cf. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403-04 , 113 S.Ct.
  • State v. Leroux 641 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Wiley 614 So. 2d 862 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    appeal after remand, (La.App.
  • State v. Ford 608 So. 2d 1058 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    the trial court allowed expert testimony concerning studies which generally reflected the fallibility of eyewitness identification in some circumstances.
  • State v. Wright 593 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Turner 591 So. 2d 391 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    [2] in which the trial court, in its discretion, allowed testimony of a psychologist that tended to discredit the accuracy of eyewitness identification.
  • State v. Lewis 578 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Gabriel 542 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    appeal after remand, (La.
  • State v. Anderson 517 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    affirmed following remand
  • State v. Mims 501 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    the trial court allowed expert testimony concerning studies which generally reflected the fallibility of eyewitness identification in some circumstances.
  • State v. Mitchell 475 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    appeal after remand, the Supreme Court in a footnote succinctly reviewed the jurisprudence on the issue of dismissal of a juror for cause because of a law enforcement connection in upholding the trial court's denial of the defendant's challenge for cause of a prospective juror who had been a warden of a local parish prison for
  • State v. Thomas 470 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Lee 446 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984