People v. Isby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

175 state decisions

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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is likewise no merit to defendants’ position that the court erred in refusing to grant their respective motions for a separate trial. The code section bearing upon this subject provides that when two or more defendants are jointly charged with a public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, ‘they must be tried jointly, unless the court order separate trials.’ (Pen. Code, § 1098.) And it has been held repeatedly that a defendant so charged is not entitled as a matter of right to a separate trial (citations), but that the question of severance is one that must be left necessarily to the deter- initiation of the trial court in the exercise of its sound discretion. (Citations.) It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a demand for separate trials because damaging testimony, admissible against one defendant and not against the other, may be received in the case, but it is then incumbent upon the court to limit such evidence in its application to the defendant to whom it is referable. (Citations.) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 Cal. App. 2d 736 - People v. Walker

2. ““It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a demand for separate trials because damaging testimony, admissible against one defendant and not against the other, may be received in the case, but it is then incumbent upon the court to limit such evidence in its application to the defendant to whom it is referable. People v. Erno, supra, 195 Cal. 272, 277 , 232 P. 710 ; People v. Perry, 195 Cal. 623, 633 , 234 P. 890 ; People v. Booth, 72 Cal.App. 160, 165 , 236 P. 987 . As above noted in the recital of the evidence in the forepart of this opinion, defendants’ respective rights in this regard were carefully preserved throughout their joint trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Whiteman

3. ““In the light of such record, it was for the jury to determine, under proper instructions, which the court gave, whether defendants, by reason of their voluntary intoxication, were incapable of forming the specific criminal intent essential to sustain their conviction; and it cannot be said from the evidence that the jury was not justified in deciding the question against defendants. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 163 Cal. App. 2d 795 - People v. Mathews