Loserth v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PHIL HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.
This murder case, involving an in-court identification, was decided by this court in 1996. We reversed the trial court, after conducting a de novo review, finding that the in-court identification of appellant was wrongly admitted because it was tainted by the impermissibly suggestive pretrial photographic identification in violation of appellant’s due process rights. Loserth v. State, 931 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996), vacated, 963 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).
After that opinion was issued, the Court of Criminal Appeals set forth the standard…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Guzman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Santos v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
- Brown v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2001
- Hamilton v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2009
- Brown v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
- Colgin v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.