Adamson v. People of State of California’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

216 federal appellate · 32 district · 328 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 938 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The first ten amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties. The people wanted and demanded a Bill of Rights written into their Constitution. The amendments embodying the Bill of Rights were intended to curb all branches of the Federal Government in the fields touched by the amendments—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments were pointedly aimed at confining exercise of power by courts and judges within precise boundaries, particularly in the procedure used for the trial of criminal cases. Past history provided strong reasons for the apprehensions which brought these procedural amendments into being and attest the wisdom of their adoption. For the fears of arbitrary court action sprang largely from the past use of courts in the imposition of criminal punishments to suppress speech, press, and religion. Hence, the constitutional limitations of courts' powers were, in the view of the Founders, essential supplements to the First Amendment, which was itself designed to protect the widest scope for all people to believe and to express the most divergent political, religious, and other views. ".... "I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century `strait jacket' as the Twining opinion[ [1] ] did. Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip · 48 Cal. 2d 419 - First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles

2. “In both cases the question was whether comment upon the failure of an accused to take the stand in his own defense in a state prosecution violated the privilege. It was assumed, but not decided, in both cases that such comment in a federal prosecution for a federal offense would infringe the provision of the Fifth Amendment that `[n]o person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 85 N.J. Super. 391 - State v. Murphy · People v. Denuyl

3. ““The provisions of California Constitution, article I, section 13, and Penal Code, section 1323, specifically provide that the failure of a defendant to testify or to explain or deny incriminating facts which have been produced against him may be commented upon by the prosecuting attorney. The constitutional provision provides as follows: “ ‘. . . but in any criminal case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be com- merited upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury. ...1 “Penal Code, section 1323, provides in part as follows: ‘ The failure of the defendant to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by counsel. ’ “Numerous eases in this jurisdiction have held that it is proper for the prosecution to point out to the jury that the defendant has failed or refused to take the witness stand and that he has failed to explain or deny incriminating facts which have been produced against him, and especially in cases where the facts concern matters which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, as in the present case. Such comments by the court or the district attorney do not violate any constitutional rights of the defendant, and the provisions of the above-cited constitutional provision and statute have been held not to violate any provision of the United States Cons”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Conterno · 163 Cal. App. 2d 740 - People v. Sauer