People v. Schindler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States ex rel. Macon v. Yeager (3d Cir. 1973) 476 F.2d 613, 615 , which stated: ‘For the purpose of the “penalty” analysis, ... we perceive little, if any, valid distinction between the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. It can be argued, with equal rigor and logical support, as to either . . . situation . . . that a prosecutor’s comment seeking to raise in the jurors’ minds an inference of guilt from the defendant’s constitutionally protected conduct constitutes a “penalty” on the free exercise of a constitutional right. [Fn. omitted.]’ “In Macon, the prosecutor in his summation to the jury commented upon the fact that tire defendant called an attorney the morning after the alleged crime and argued that this action cast doubt on the defendant’s claim that the shooting was an accident. The Macon court held this to be reversible constitutional error, 'interpreting Griffin as an absolute prohibition against the imposition of any penalty for tire exercise of a constitutional right in a criminal law context. (Id., at pp. 615-616.) “Several states have also generally held that a prosecutor cannot properly imply guilt from a defendant’s request for counsel. (See, e.g., People v. Kennedy (1975) 33 Ill. App. 3d 857 [ 338 N.E.2d 414, 417-418 ]; State v. Kyseth (Iowa 1976) [ 240 N.W.2d 671, 674 ]; Mays v. State (Tenn. Crim. 1972) 495 S.W.2d 833, 836 .) “In United States v. Williams (D.C. Cir. 1977) ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixon

2. ““The improper exploitation of defendant’s exercise of her constitutional rights to remain silent and to retain the counsel of her choice cannot be deemed harmless error under either the standard stated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], or the higher standard specified in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ], The only issue at trial was defendant’s intent and mental capacity at the time of the commission of the offense. The defense evidence was substantial. The rebuttal evidence direcdy attacked her defense, and the prosecutor’s argument that the evidence showed she was fabricating her ‘panic’ state was most prejudicial. Furthermore, the fact that the jury deliberated 22 hours before reaching a verdict underscores the closeness of the case and the crucial nature of the constitutional violations. (See People v. Rucker, supra., 26 Cal. 3d at p. 391.) The judgment of conviction, therefore, must be reversed.” 114 Cal. App. 3d at 190 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixon

3. ““ ‘The reason for bringing that statement in about Mr. Geragos is twofold: One, here is a woman that said she didn’t know any of the circumstances about the death of Lou Schindler’s previous wife, who just got smatters and pieces from people as she went along and who evidently somewhere along the line picked up the idea that Paul Geragos was the prosecuting attorney against Mr. Lou Schindler. Here is a woman who is in a panic state and within this panic state, she has a miraculous ability, this selective amnesia, to turn it off, reach down to the depths of her mind and pull out one attorney and of all of the attorneys in the world she felt could best give her representation that night — we are talking about the night of the lolling- — and that is Mr. Geragos. Where do you think she pulled that name from? Out of a hat? “ . . And this was a few hours after the commission of the act, the act for which she was in a panic state.’ ” 114 Cal. App. 3d at 184-85 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dixon