People v. Braddock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

154 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'If the officer uses no more persuasion than is necessary to an ordinary sale, and the accused is ready and willing to make the sale, there is no entrapment.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Gutierrez · People v. Beccera

2. “'[E]ntrapment "is a positive defense imposing upon an accused the burden of showing that he was induced to commit the act for which he is on trial”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Williams · 258 Cal. App. 2d 385 - People v. Woolwine

3. ““[8] The many decisions in this state which define the defense of entrapment were reviewed in People v. Lindsey, 91 Cal.App.2d 914 [ 205 P.2d 1114 ], and the law stated as follows: ‘Where the doing of an act is a crime, regardless of the consent of anyone, the courts are agreed that if the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the offense is completed, the fact that an opportunity was furnished, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him therefore, constitutes no defense. (Citations.) If the officer uses no more persuasion than is necessary to an ordinary sale, and the accused is ready and willing to make the sale, there is no entrapment.’ (P. 917.) [9] More recently it was held: ‘It is not the entrapment of a criminal upon which the law frowns, but the seduction of innocent people into a criminal career by its officers is what is condemned and will not be tolerated. [10] Where an accused has a preexisting criminal intent, the fact that when solicited by a decoy he committed a crime raises no inference of unlawful entrapment. ’ (People v. Schwartz, 109 Cal.App.2d 450, 455 [ 240 P.2d 1024 ] ; quoted with approval in People v. Roberts, supra, [ 40 Cal.2d 483 ( 254 P.2d 501 )] at page 489; accord People v. Makovsky, 3 Cal.2d 366, 369 [ 44 P.2d 536 ] ; People v. Branch, 119 Cal.App.2d 490, 494 [ 260 P.2d 27 ] ; People v. Alamillo, 113 Cal.App.2d 617, 620-621 [ 248 P.2d 421 ]; People v.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Tiller