4 Cal. 5th 1 - People v. Henriquez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The federal Constitution does not require that the jury agree unanimously on which aggravating factors apply. [Citation.] This does not violate a capital defendant's right to equal protection of the laws. '[C]apital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated and therefore may be treated differently without violating constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws or due process of law.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Cal. 5th 318 - People v. Miracle

2. “[t]he trial court's failure to [instruct] the jury that there is a presumption of life does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights to due process, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, to a reliable determination of his sentence, and to equal protection of the law under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Cal. 5th 318 - People v. Miracle

3. “any relevant factors including, but not limited to, ... the seriousness and gravity * of the offense and the circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant as a result of the crime, the extent to which any other person suffered any losses as a result of the crime, and the number of victims involved in the crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Cal. 5th 1012 - People v. Potts