13 Cal. App. 3d 608 - People v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The statements were admissible as not being within the hearsay rule. Section 1200 of the Evidence Code defines hearsay evidence as ‘evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.’ (Italics added.) None of the statements were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, they were offered to show merely that the words were uttered. . . . “Wallace’s right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witness Heaney [a codefendant], who did not testify, was not violated by the admission of his statements. (Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 ], Douglas v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 415 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 934 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 ] and Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 923 , 85 S.Ct. 1065 ], relied upon by Wallace hold only that an accused’s right to confrontation is violated when a confession of a nontestifying codefendant implicating the accused is admitted in evidence. Likewise, Cook v. Sigler, 299 F.Supp. 1338 , is not in point as it deals with statements of a codefendant incriminating the defendant. Here, as already mentioned, there was no confession nor implication of Wallace by the statements of the codefendants.” (p. 618.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. White & Stewart