People v. Granillo’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Stanley v. State (1988), Jackson v. State (1991)
36 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 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · 43 Cal. 3d 171 - People v. Ledesma · 42 Cal. 3d 711 - People v. Turner · 35 Cal. 3d 161 - People v. Hall · 36 Cal. 3d 36 - People v. Harris
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The prima facie showing requirement is a distinct step which should be treated as such. Twelve potential jurors have been passed ‘for cause’ and peremptory challenges are being exercised. A ['Wheeler'] objection is made that there is an objectively reasonable basis for believing the other side is improperly excusing jurors. The reasonableness of the belief is the limited issue at this point. The court must determine whether there is a prima facie indication of constitutional abuse. The focus is on the objecting party’s contentions and the record. The burden is upon the objecting party; justifications by the other side are not yet appropriate. If justifications are heard at this early stage in the process an undoubtedly unintended implication arises that a prima facie showing has been made to the satisfaction of the court. “Once the court rules a prima facie showing has been made, the ‘peremptory’ attribute of the challenges is lost and the focus turns to justifying the excuses on some acceptable specific basis. No longer is the court ‘screening’ out frivolous objections. Although the court may have second thoughts concerning whether a prima facie showing has been made, it may not return to the screening process. The sole issue then pending is the adequacy of the justifications.” (People v. Granillo (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 110, 122 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 639 ].)”
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.