People v. Braun’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

150 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a familiar rule that in reviewing the correctness of factual determinations, the function of an appellate court is limited to the question whether there is any substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment. To entitle a reviewing court to set aside a jury’s finding of guilt, the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all. (Citing eases.) In a case such as the present one, where there is positive direct testimony that the defendant was one of the perpetrators of the crime, it is incumbent upon him to show that the testimony is inherently unbelievable in order to prevail. ‘A statement, to bear upon its face the brand of improbability, or which may be said to be unbelievable, per se, must involve, we think, a claim that something has been done that it would not seem possible could be done under the circumstances described, or involve conduct that no one but a person of a seriously calentured mentality would be likely to do. ’ (People v. Haydon, 18 Cal. App. 543, 553 [ 123 P. 1102 ].) ” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 Cal. App. 2d 528 - People v. Bryant · 194 Cal. App. 2d 233 - People v. Nunley

2. ““Whether the misconduct of a prosecuting attorney has prejudiced the substantial rights of a defendant must rest largely upon the facts of each case. An appellate court may only reverse the judgment when it appears from all the facts that there has been a miscarriage of justice. (Const., art VI, §4%.) Obviously, conduct of a prosecutor which would amount to prejudicial misconduct in one case might not result in a miscarriage of justice in another case. In other words, there is no definite rule by which asserted misconduct may be measured for the purpose of determining whether it prevented the defendant from having that fair and impartial trial which the law required for every person charged with a crime. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 Cal. App. 2d 108 - People v. Sims