People v. Barnum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 20 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. ““Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution provides, in part, that: ‘A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the consent of both parties, expressed in open court by the defendant and his counsel. ’ It has been held repeatedly that the consent of the defendant must be expressed by him personally and may not be implied (People v. Garcia, 98 Cal.App. 702 [ 277 P. 747 ]; People v. Wilkerson, 99 Cal.App. 123 [ 278 P. 466 ]; People v. Barba, 100 Cal.App. 557 [ 280 P. 549 ]; People v. Spinato, 100 Cal.App. 600 [ 280 P. 691 ]; People v. Wyatt, 101 Cal.App. 396 [ 281 P. 629 ]; People v. Woods, 126 Cal.App. 158 [ 14 P.2d 313 ]; People v. Washington, 95 Cal.App.2d 454 [ 213 P.2d 70 ]; People v. Shannon, 110 Cal.App.2d 153 [ 241 P.2d 1007 ]; People v. Pechar, 130 Cal.App.2d 616 [279 P.2d 570]; People v. Benjamin, 140 Cal.App.2d 703 [ 295 P.2d 477 ]). In each of these cases in which a petition for hearing before the Supreme Court has been filed such petition has been denied. In People v. Pechar, 130 Cal.App.2d 616, 619 [ 279 P.2d 570 ], the court held that the consent of a defendant waiving a trial by jury must be expressed ‘by the use of language.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Terry

2. “The remaining contention of the defendants concerns the effect of the proceedings at the time the jury was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial before the court. The attorney for defendants advised the court that they waived a trial by jury. The district attorney joined in this waiver. Thereupon, the court ordered a roll call of the prospective jurors present and advised them that they were excused, as the defendants had waived a trial by jury. The defendants were present during all of this time; they made no statement; were not asked personally whether they joined in the waiver; and at no time made any objection to proceeding to trial before the court without a jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Heinze

3. “In the case at bar, the attorney general, on behalf of respondent, urges the same contention which he urged in the cited case, i. e., that consent may be `expressed' by conduct as well as by words, and asks this court to reappraise the rule. In the light of the consistent adherence to this rule, over a period of 27 years, by the appellate courts of this state, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant a hearing in any case applying it, we do not feel that such a reappraisal is within our province. 28 "The judgment * * * is reversed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. Heinze