3 Cal. 4th 691 - People v. Danielson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 1060 - People v. Rodrigues (1994), State v. Cowans (1999)
123 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 · Rakas v. Illinois · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Caldwell v. Mississippi
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant is mentally incompetent `if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.' (ง 1367, italics added.) ... [N]o substantial evidence was raised indicating he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or to cooperate with his counsel.... In light of the entire record, we conclude the court was not required to order a formal competency hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`An appellate court is in no position to appraise a defendant's conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign insanity and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he presentation of evidence of past criminal conduct at a sentencing hearing does not place the defendant in jeopardy with respect to the past offenses. He is not on trial for the past offense, is not subject to conviction or punishment for the past offense, and may not claim either speedy trial or double jeopardy protection against introduction of such evidence. [Citation.]”
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.