210 Cal. App. 2d 721 - People v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 1987
19 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 Shepard v. United States · 44 Cal. 2d 434 - People v. Cahan · 58 Cal. 2d 748 - People v. McFarland · 55 Cal. 2d 27 - People v. Sweeney · 98 Cal. App. 2d 1 - People v. Griffin
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although evidence obtained by electronic eavesdropping accomplished by acts which constitute a trespass has been held inadmissible in People v. Tarantino, 45 Cal.2d 590 [ 290 P.2d 505 ], as being evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure under the principles of People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ], it nevertheless has been held that `[w]here the entry is by invitation of the defendant, a secret recording of a vis-a-vis conversation is not inadmissible ... whether the recording be by means of a self-contained recording device [citing cases] or by means of a concealed wireless transmitter where the recording is made at another location [citing cases].' ( People v. Albert, 182 Cal. App.2d 729, 736 [ 6 Cal. Rptr. 473 ] (hearing denied).) In People v. Wootan, 195 Cal. App.2d 481 [ 15 Cal. Rptr. 833 ], it was also held that the party to the electronically recorded conversation could use a transcript thereof to refresh his memory of said conversation even though portions of the record from which the transcript was made were unintelligible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Brooks““The evidence need not corroborate the accomplice as to every fact to which he testifies but is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth; it must tend to implicate the defendant and therefore must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the crime but it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense charged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Gilbert
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.