19 Cal. 3d 835 - People v. Gainer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 320 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 359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty, as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You are not partisans. You are judges — judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Beattie · State v. Fajardo

2. “These instructions were quite lengthy, and were, in substance, that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other’s arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other hand, the majority was for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Medina · State v. Howard

3. “"The first and most questionable feature is the discriminatory admonition directed to minority jurors to rethink their position in light of the majority's views. In the Allen opinion this concept is expressed in the following passage: `[I]f much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other hand, the majority was for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority.' ... A second controversial element in Allen -type instructions, not approved in Allen itself, is the direction ... that ` You should consider that the case must at some time be decided. '" People v. Gainer, 19 Cal.3d 835 , 139 Cal. Rptr. 861, 866 , 566 P.2d 997, 1002 (Cal. 1977) (emphasis added).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Silcox · 152 Cal. App. 4th 968 - People v. Whaley