People v. Casarez’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1982 · most notably People v. Green (1969), 4 Cal. 3d 911 - In Re Terry (1971)
24 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 Chapman v. State of California · Pointer v. Texas · Barber v. Page · Mattox v. United States · 62 Cal. 2d 692 - People v. Hillery
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘We start with the fact that the State made absolutely no effort to obtain the presence of Woods at trial other than to ascertain that he was in a federal prison outside Oklahoma. It must be acknowledged that various courts and commentators have heretofore assumed that the mere absence of a witness from the jurisdiction was sufficient ground for dispensing with confrontation on the theory that “it is impossible to compel his attendance, because the process of the trial Court is of no force without the jurisdiction, and the party desiring his testimony is therefore helpless.” 5 Wigmore, Evidence §1404 (3d ed. 1940). “ ‘Whatever may have been the accuracy of that theory at one time, it is clear that at the present time increased cooperation between the States themselves and between the States and the Federal Government have largely deprived it of any continuing validity in the criminal law. ’ “ . . In short, a witness is not “unavailable” for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. The State made no such effort here, and, so far as this record reveals, the sole reason why Woods was not present to testify in person was because the State did not attempt to seek his presence. The right of confrontation may not be dispensed with so lightly. ’ “With this recent articulation of our highest court in mind, we must reverse the judgment in the instant case. T”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The right to confrontation [conferred by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution] is basically a trial right. It includes both the right to cross-examine and the occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Ashford
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.