People v. Doolittle’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 503 - Stone v. Superior Court (1982), 33 Cal. 3d 596 - People v. Smith (1983)
2 district · 41 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 Green v. United States · Price v. Georgia · 60 Cal. 2d 482 - People v. Henderson · 30 Cal. 2d 589 - People v. Greer · 71 Cal. 2d 342 - People v. Hutchinson
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . [W]e apprehend that in the trial of an offense which necessarily includes a lesser offense, as was the case here, the jury, before they can return a verdict, must, on the one hand, agree that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged or any included offense or, on the other hand, agree that he is not guilty of any offense, whether the greater or the lesser. We are of the opinion that although the law contemplates the conviction of an accused of a lesser offense when the evidence is insufficient to justify conviction for the greater offense charged (citing cases), an acquittal of the greater charge does not result because the jury may have deemed the evidence insufficient to support that charge unless the jury agrees that he is guilty of a lesser included offense or agrees that he is not guilty of the crime charged, which finding includes a determination that he is not guilty of any included offense.” (pp. 19, 20.)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Tomlin v. McKune · State v. McKay“We may not infer from the foreman's statement that the jury had unanimously agreed to acquit of first degree murder. There is no reliable basis in fact for such an implication, for the jurors had not completed their deliberations and those voting for second degree murder may have been temporarily compromising in an effort to reach unanimity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The significant holding in Griffin is that the jury, as in the case here, had not completed its deliberations. In the instant case, as in Griffin , the ballots taken and voted upon may well have been the result of temporary compromises in an effort to reach unanimity.”
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.