33 Cal. 3d 931 - People v. Jasper’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 51 Cal. 3d 335 - Lucido v. Superior Court (1990), 53 Cal. 3d 334 - People v. Jennings (1991)
51 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 Simmons v. United States · 13 Cal. 3d 867 - People v. Coleman · 30 Cal. 3d 43 - People v. Collie · 24 Cal. 3d 879 - People v. Belleci · 23 Cal. 3d 516 - People v. Belton
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hether a revocation hearing should be held before trial rests in the reasonable discretion of the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is clear that the extent of discovery provided to the state in a pretrial revocation hearing vastly exceeds the scope of discovery at issue in Allen, Belton and Collie . Not only is the prosecution able to obtain the names of defense witnesses, but the state is given pretrial access to the substance of their testimony as well as the opportunity to cross-examine them. In fact, the pretrial revocation procedure presents the prosecution with an opportunity effectively to depose the accused and his witnesses prior to trial on the underlying charges. If the privilege protects an accused against being compelled to reveal even the names of his witnesses prior to calling them to testify at his trial (Allen) and if it shields him against having to specify defects in the prosecution’s case at that trial (Belton), then surely it must protect an individual from having to present his entire defense at a pretrial inquiry.””
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.