2 Cal. 3d 205 - People v. Robles’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 382 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 394 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably State v. Coleman (1988), 31 Cal. 3d 18 - People v. Shirley (1982)
8 federal appellate · 382 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 62 Cal. 2d 338 - People v. Dorado · 1 Cal. 3d 122 - In Re Tahl · People v. Daniels
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 394 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Requiring an attorney against his better judgment to examine his client places no unfair burden on the attorney: an attorney is always faced with the burden of developing his trial strategy in the light of what evidence is available and presented in court. Nor is a defendant ordinarily prejudiced when he is represented by an attorney who believes, contrary to the defendant, that the latter should not testify.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[a] prosecutor is not required to stipulate to the existence of any elements of the crime he is attempting to prove where the stipulation will impair the effectiveness of the prosecutor's case....' ( People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 205, 213 ....)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although ... an attorney representing a criminal defendant has the power to control the court proceedings [citations], that power may not be exercised to deprive a defendant of certain fundamental rights [citations]. [¶] We are satisfied that the right to testify in one's own behalf is of such fundamental importance that a defendant who timely demands to take the stand contrary to the advice given by his counsel has the right to give an exposition of his defense before a jury. [Citation.] The defendant's insistence upon testifying may in the final analysis be harmful to his case, but the right is of such fundamental importance that every defendant should have it in a criminal case. Although normally the decision whether a defendant should testify is within the competence of the trial attorney [citation], where, as here, a defendant insists that he wants to testify, he cannot be deprived of that opportunity.”
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.