175 Cal. App. 2d 101 - People v. Dailey’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably 20 Cal. 4th 701 - People v. Welch (1999), 67 Cal. 2d 272 - People v. Laudermilk (1967)
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
Relies on People v. Slobodion · People v. Lindley · People v. Perry · 49 Cal. 2d 313 - People v. Craig · 166 Cal. App. 2d 638 - People v. Howard
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At the moment of the second trial, the presiding judge had before him a report subscribed by two psychiatrists — the same ones who examined and declared defendant mentally incompetent at the first trial — issued on December 8, 1960 and in which said psychiatrists certify that the defendant Juan Cruz Román, was mentally competent to face trial and to answer for the crime' charged against him. Furthermore, defendant’s counsel himself admitted that his client was no longer insane. (See Tr. Ev. second trial, at p. 88.) This being so, we see no way in which substantial doubt could arise in the mind of the judge as to defendant’s sanity. It is equally unlikely that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to suspend the proceedings in order to follow the first advice of the psychiatrists. “To this purpose, the fact that the court which heard the first trial against defendant-appellant, did not follow the advice of the psychiatrists is irrelevant. We are in agreement with appellant’s contention that starting from that moment, the commitment of defendant in a penal institution turned out to be illegal. We do not believe, however, that this fact can lead to such consequences as sought by defendant’s counsel. “We have already seen that the purpose of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which reference has been made, is to prevent that an accused who is incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him, and consequently of d”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Cruz Román
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.