10 Cal. 4th 330 - People v. Badgett’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 22 Cal. 4th 900 - People v. Jenkins (2000), 26 Cal. 4th 81 - People v. Catlin (2001)
10 federal appellate · 88 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Faretta v. California · Lego v. Twomey · United States v. Payner · Wilson v. Arkansas
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is a significant difference in the burden of proof applicable to a claim under the Fifth Amendment and [Do-well’s] claim that the testimony of a third party is subject to exclusion as a matter of due process. The burden is on the [Government] to demonstrate the voluntariness of a defendant’s admissions or confessions.... By contrast, when a defendant makes a motion to exclude coerced testimony of a third party on due process grounds, the burden of proving improper coercion is upon the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[citation] and its admission denies defendant a fair trial. On the other hand, although there is a certain degree of compulsion inherent in any plea agreement or grant of immunity, it is clear that an agreement requiring only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the immunity agreement in this case had conditioned [the accomplice’s] immunity on an understanding that she would testify at trial consistently with her previous statements to the police, we would conclude that the trial court erred in rejecting the defense motion to exclude her testimony. Our review of the record, however, persuades us that although, as defendants claim, there was some mention of consistency in the initial understanding with respect to immunity at [the accomplice’s] juvenile court detention hearing, the agreement under which she actually testified did not contain such a condition. It is the latter agreement, of course, that is determinative of defendants’ claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.