36 Cal. 4th 1114 - People v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
230 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 237 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably 40 Cal. 4th 1179 - People v. Prince (2007), 52 Cal. 4th 856 - People v. Clark (2011)
230 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Mapp v. Ohio · Rakas v. Illinois · New York 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 237 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`as long as a defendant was provided the opportunity for cross-examination, the admission of preliminary hearing testimony under Evidence Code section 1291 does not offend the confrontation clause of the federal constitution simply because the defendant did not conduct a particular form of cross-examination that in hindsight might have been more effective:' ( People v. Samayoa [(1997)] 15 Cal.4th 795, 851 [, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ] ..., italics omitted; see also People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 975 [, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 , 846 P.2d 704 ] ...; People v. Alcala (1992) 4 Cal.4th 742, 784 [, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 432 , 842 P.2d 1192 ]....)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is not 'a function of the examination of prospective jurors to educate the jury panel to the particular facts of the case , to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way, to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, to argue the case, to indoctrinate the jury, or to instruct the jury in matters of law.' [Citation.] Therefore, a question may be excluded if it appears to be intended solely to accomplish such improper purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`A criminal defendant is . . . entitled to a record on appeal that is adequate to permit meaningful review. . . . The record on appeal is inadequate, however, only if the complained-of deficiency is prejudicial to the defendant's ability to prosecute his appeal. [Citation.] It is the defendant's burden to show prejudice of this sort.'”
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.