16 Cal. 3d 156 - People v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 196 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope (1979), 19 Cal. 3d 121 - People v. Windham (1977)
16 federal appellate · 196 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Faretta v. California · United States v. Wade · Aguilar v. Texas · Stovall v. Denno
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`1. That the evidence, and not merely its materiality, be newly discovered; 2. That the evidence be not cumulative merely; 3. That it be such as to render a different result probable on a retrial of the cause; 4. That the party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced it at the trial; and 5. That these facts be shown by the best evidence of which the case admits.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . the purpose of the rule is to secure to an accused the personal freedom to choose how and by whom he will defend against a criminal charge. It is manifest . . . that compliance with the rule is not intended by the majority of the court in Faretta to enhance the reliability of the truth-determining or fact-finding process, as the majority anticipate and indeed concede, that such compliance will most likely have the directly opposite effect.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Scott v. State · In re G.G.““ ‘The determination of whether a rule is to be given retroactive application is generally made pursuant to a balancing process, wherein the gain to be achieved in the administration of justice by accomplishment of the purpose of the new rule (the first criterion) is balanced against the adverse effects on the administration of justice resulting from the extent to which the courts have mistakenly but in good faith relied on the prevailing rule (the second criterion) and from an application of the new rule for the purpose of reconsidering determinations already finally made pursuant to the then prevailing rule (the third criterion).’ People v. McDaniel, 16 Cal.3d 156 , 127 Cal.Rptr. 467, 472 , 545 P.2d 843, 848 (1976).” 98 Idaho at 609 , 570 P.2d at 287 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bergman v. Henry
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.