Kirk Anthony Conde v. Iralee Henry James Gomez Bill Lockyer Attorney General of the State of California’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.3d 734 · 2000
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably 48 Cal. 4th 574 - People v. Taylor (2010), United States v. Kellington (2000)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Arizona v. Fulminante · United States v. Cronic
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Herring v. New York, the Supreme Court set out the principle that the “closing argument for the defense is a basic element of the adversary fact finding process in a criminal trial.” 422 U.S. 853 , 858 [ 95 S.Ct. 2550 , 45 L.Ed.2d 593 ] (1975). Thus, “it has universally been held that counsel for the defense has a right to make a closing summation to the jury, no matter how strong the case for the prosecution may appear to the presiding judge.” Id. Although a court may limit arguments that are unduly time consuming, “stray unduly from the mark, or otherwise impede the fair and orderly conduct,” id. at 862 [ 95 S.Ct. 2550 ], denying an accused the right to make final arguments on his theory of the defense denies him the right to assistance of counsel, see id. at 865 [ 95 S.Ct. 2550 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although a court may limit arguments that are unduly time consuming, `stray unduly from the mark, or otherwise impede the fair and orderly conduct of the trial,' denying an accused the right to make final arguments on his theory of the defense denies him the right to assistance of counsel.... By preventing [petitioner] from arguing that no robbery had occurred and that he lacked the requisite intent to rob, the trial court's order violated the defendant's fundamental right to assistance of counsel and right to present a defense, and it relieved the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The very framework within which the trial proceeded on the kidnapping charge prevented the defendant from presenting his theory of the defense and prevented the jury from determining whether all of the elements of kidnapping for robbery had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that Conde was deprived of a fair trial on the kidnapping charge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.