30 Cal. 4th 660 - People v. Batts’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 38 Cal. 4th 72 - People v. Jurado (2006), People v. Anderson (2009)
4 federal appellate · 56 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · United States v. Jorn
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“following the grant of a defendant's mistrial motion (1) when the prosecut[or] intentionally commits misconduct for the purpose of triggering a mistrial, and also (2) when the prosecut[or], believing in view of events that unfold during an ongoing trial that the defendant is likely to secure an acquittal at that trial in the absence of misconduct, intentionally and knowingly commits misconduct in order to thwart such an acquittal and a court, reviewing the circumstances as of the time of the misconduct, determines that from an objective perspective, the prosecutor's misconduct in fact deprived the defendant of a reasonable prospect of an acquittal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michael J.“These standards appear to blur inappropriately the line between (i) the `normal' species of prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct that violates a defendant's due process right to a fair trial and hence warrants the granting of a mistrial or the reversal of any conviction and a retrial of the offense, and (ii) the exceptional form of prosecutorial misconduct that warrants not only a mistrial or reversal of any resulting conviction, but also dismissal of the charges and a prohibition of any reprosecution of the defendant for the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Michael J.“[t]he Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment ( Benton v. Maryland (1969) 395 U.S. 784 , 793-796 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 707 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 2061-2064 ]), protects defendants from repeated prosecution for the same offense [citations], by providing that no person shall `be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . . .'”
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.