People v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), 17 Cal. 3d 687 - People v. Collins (1976)
24 federal appellate · 48 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Cancemi v. . the People · United States v. Virginia Erection Corp. · People v. Lanigan · 4 Cal. App. 2d 75 - People v. Bruneman · People v. . Cosmo
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the ‘alternate juror entered the jury room after the eleven original jurors had sifted the evidence, and in all probability, already formulated their preliminary positions. Most important of all, each of the eleven jurors was aware of the outlooks and positions of the others on the questions presented by the case, and sufficient time had elapsed so that surely the interplay of influences among and between the jurors had come into operation. . . . [I]f deliberations had progressed to a stage where the original eleven were in substantial agreement, they were in a position to present a formidable obstacle to the alternate juror’s attempts to persuade and convince the eleven remaining original jurors.’ ” People v. Ryan, 19 N.Y.2d 100 , 278 N.Y.S.2d 199, 202 , 224 N.E.2d 710 (1966).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is no question that the provision for the substitution of alternate jurors prior to the submission of the case to the jury is constitutional. During the course of the trial the 12 regular jurors and the alternate jurors are treated similarly in all respects. And since the jurors are not permitted to discuss the case among themselves until it is submitted to them, there is no way in which the defendants’ rights could be prejudiced if 1 or more of the 12 jurors are replaced by an alternate juror. Twelve jurors who hear the evidence and are in all respects treated as jurors participate in the deliberations and render a verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Claudio v. State“the Constitution of this State, as it has been construed, prohibits the substitution of an alternate juror — in effect a 13th juror — after the jury has begun its deliberation.”). 63 . According to Wright,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Claudio v. State
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.