People v. Leever’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 20 Cal. 4th 701 - People v. Welch (1999), 22 Cal. 4th 48 - People v. Ervin (2000)
29 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Faretta v. California · Mullaney v. Wilbur · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 57 Cal. 2d 450 - Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When defense counsel first asked whether Hoover was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the killing, the witness answered only that ‘I’m not sure I could answer that except to say that he — what he was doing, he felt, was right. He had been conditioned for that.’ When counsel repeated the question the witness answered, ‘Well, I’m sure he wasn’t even thinking of that at the time of the act.’ This was followed shortly by the following colloquy: [The witness] ‘I’m of the opinion that he was conditioned not to be thinking about those sorts of things. That he was conditioned to feel at a gut level that what he was doing was necessary.’ [Defense counsel] ‘So based upon that conditioning, would it be your answer to the question that he did not know that he was doing was wrong?’ [The witness] ‘Under those circumstances, yes.’ (Emphasis added.) On cross-examination, when confronted with Hoover’s prior admission that T knew it was wrong, but I didn’t give a shit,’ the witness never denied that the statement indicated contemporaneous awareness of wrongfulness, but simply emphasized the part of Hoover’s statement that referred to coaching by Richards. “Thus the defense expert never asserted unequivocally that Hoover was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the killing. The witness was unequivocal only to the extent he asserted Hoover was ‘conditioned’ not to think about right and wrong but instead to feel that the killing was ‘necessary.’ The”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hoover v. Carey“Evidence has been received regarding a [mental disease] [mental defect] or [mental disorder] of the defendant at the time of the offense charged [in Count _]. You may consider such evidence solely for the purpose of determining whether or not the defendant actually formed the mental state which is an element of the crime charged in [in Count_] to wit__”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Turner v. Calderon“suicidal, incapable of understanding `the nature of his illness,' impaired in judgment, limited in his ability to `conceptualize abstract thought,' incapable of `remaining focused' on a given task and demonstrating `bizarre thinking.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.