38 Cal. 3d 543 - In Re Misener’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably 52 Cal. 3d 894 - People v. Pieters (1991), 54 Cal. 3d 356 - Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991)
8 federal appellate · 127 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 Malloy v. Hogan · United States v. Nobles · Williams v. Florida · Wardius v. Oregon · Baldwin v. New York Williams
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By requiring the defendant to hand over evidence that will impeach his witnesses, [the statute] undeniably lightens the prosecution’s burden. To the extent the prosecution gains information tending to negate a defense it is not investigating its own case, proving its own facts, or convincing the jury through its own resources. . . . [T]he privilege forbids compelled disclosures which could serve as a link in a chain of evidence tending to establish guilt of a criminal offense; in ruling upon a claim of privilege, the trial court must find it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circumstances in the case that an answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness. The constitutional protection does not end with the establishment of a prima facie case; it extends to the establishment of guilt, including absence of defense, excuse, or justification. There is no doubt that the evisceration of a defense “incriminates” the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The greater investigative power and advantage of the government over the defense in a criminal case has been acknowledged by various commentators. For example, `At the outset of a criminal case, the advantage lies with the state because of its ability to gain access to the facts. Generally, the prosecution has both a greater opportunity, including the prompt on-the-scene investigations, and more formidable resources with which to gather and preserve evidence....' (Van Kessel, Prosecutorial Discovery and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Accommodation or Capitulation (1977) 4 Hastings Const. L.Q. 855 , 871-872.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“absent the privilege against self-incrimination or other privileges provided by law, the defendant in a criminal case has no valid interest in denying the prosecution access to evidence that can throw light on issues in the case.”
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.