People v. Mora’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably People v. Van Eyk (1961), 238 Cal. App. 2d 819 - People v. Glaser (1965)
8 federal appellate · 23 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 Rochin v. People of California · United States v. Oppenheimer · 66 Cal. App. 2d 166 - People v. Zammora · People v. Beltran · Harris v. State
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To permit such statements to be introduced would do violence to all the rules of fair play. To condone such a practice could render futile the right to the aid of counsel so carefully preserved by our Constitutions, our statutes and our decisions. It would open the gate to unlawful preliminary hearings at which damaging statements would be elicited; to be followed by properly conducted proceedings leading to trial whereat the statements so obtained could be used for conviction. The United States Supreme Court has held in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 [ (1952) ], 342 U.S. 165 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 , 25 A.L.R.2d 1396 , that the wrong in unlawfully obtaining evidence may be so great that its use thereafter would amount to a denial of due process. Denying the right to counsel in criminal proceedings is the denial of due process. People v. Zammora, 66 Cal.App.2d 166, 234 , 152 P.2d 180 [ (1944) ]. Giving to the adjudication that appellant’s right to counsel was denied! ] the weight to which it is entitled!,] we think the trial court erred in admitting the statements made by !the] accused at the first preliminary. To admit evidence so obtained into the subsequent trial was to carry into that trial the same denial of due process which the court had already adjudicated had occurred at the preliminary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rolon v. State
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.