3 Cal. 4th 926 - People v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 9 Cal. 4th 83 - People v. Crittenden (1994), 8 Cal. 4th 1060 - People v. Rodrigues (1994)
3 federal appellate · 208 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 Massiah v. United States · Beck v. Alabama · 23 Cal. 3d 412 - People v. Pope · 1 Cal. 4th 324 - People v. Price · 1 Cal. 4th 495 - People v. Kelly
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt only if it `cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.' The words `rational' and `reasonable' in the context of [these instructions] must be read in conjunction with the instruction on reasonable doubt (CALJIC No. 2.90). [Citation.] That instruction informs the jurors that in the event they harbor a reasonable doubt concerning guilt, they are required to acquit.... [¶] ... Thus, the jury properly can find the prosecution's theory as to the interpretation of the circumstantial evidence `reasonable' and alternate theories favorable to the defense `unreasonable,' within the meaning of these instructions, only if the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the accuracy of the prosecution's theory. [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The victim, last seen carrying a trucker's wallet attached with a chain to his belt, was discovered after his death with his belt undone, and with his wallet and most of his cash missing. Also, the victim had been shot twice in the head [while he was sleeping], indicating a deliberate, purposeful killing. There was only bare speculation, not substantial evidence, to support the theory presently advanced by defendant that the murder did not coincide with the taking of the victim's money.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the evidence was not inconsistent with the theory that [he] shot and killed the victim ... and then fled, and that another person then came upon the victim's body and removed the wallet, or that the victim was not carrying a wallet or cash at the time he was shot.”
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.