38 Cal. 3d 301 - People v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 557 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 576 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 45 Cal. 3d 727 - Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988), 43 Cal. 3d 1002 - People v. Woodhead (1987)
7 federal appellate · 557 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
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Bruton v. United States · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Leary v. United States · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen · Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell
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 576 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[W]hen it is proved that a witness has been convicted of crime, the only ground for disbelieving him which such proof affords is the general readiness to do evil which the conviction may be supposed to show. It is from that general disposition alone that the jury is asked to infer a readiness to lie in a particular case, and thence that he has lied in fact.' " ( Ibid . ) Thus, according to Castro , if the crime "does not show a 'readiness to do evil,' the fact of conviction simply will not support an inference of readiness to lie.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State · People v. Bedolla“the use of any felony conviction which necessarily involves moral turpitude, even if the immoral trait is one other than dishonesty,” subject to the trial court's discretion to exclude unduly prejudicial evidence under Cal. Evid.Code § 352). Because our concern is what Boyde's counsel did before and during trial, we consider California law as it existed prior to this constitutional amendment. 14 . Gordon, the case on which Beagle principally relied, emphasized that it did not”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Boyde v. Brown · Johnson v. State“'convictions which are assaultive in nature do not weigh as heavily in the balance favoring admissibility as those convictions which are based on dishonesty or some other lack of integrity.' " Castro , 38 Cal.3d at 315 , 211 Cal.Rptr. at 727 , 696 P.2d at 119 . "Nevertheless, it is undeniable that a witness' moral depravity of any kind has some 'tendency in reason' (Evid. Code, § 210) to shake one's confidence in his honesty.”
4 later decisions 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.