People v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Bruton v. United States · Griffin v. California · Lockett v. Ohio · Payne v. Tennessee
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' " ( People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658 , 766 [ 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 191 , 306 P.3d 1049 ] ; accord, People v. Linton [2013] 56 Cal.4th [1146,] 1216 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 , 302 P.3d 927 ].) "There is no constitutional requirement that the jury be instructed regarding which of the statutory factors in [Penal Code] section 190.3 are aggravating, which are mitigating, and which could be either aggravating or mitigating.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'The jury may properly consider evidence of unadjudicated criminal activity under [Penal Code] section 190.3, factor (b) ( People v. Whisenhunt [ (2008) ] 44 Cal.4th [174,] 228 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 125 , 186 P.3d 496 ] ), [and] jury unanimity regarding such conduct is not required [citation].' ( People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620 , 653 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 117 , 248 P.3d 651 ] ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“certain mitigating factors were present did not impermissibly invite the jury to aggravate the sentence upon the basis of nonexistent or irrational aggravating factors.'”
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.