41 Cal. 3d 353 - People v. Deere’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 137 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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although counsel in this case fulfilled his obligations to his client, he failed to perform a role assigned to him by the state, that of presenting the mitigating evidence necessary to assure the reliability of the penalty determination. But the fact that the state assigns defense counsel a role which may require him to act contrary to his client’s wishes on a matter of such vital importance to the client presents a troubling picture. The defense of a capital case often requires a close and trusting relationship between counsel and client; yet our decision requires counsel to violate that trust, to take a position against his client, and perhaps to present evidence revealed to him in confidence by his client. Trial courts should explore methods of alleviating this conflict. In some cases it might be desirable for counsel, in addition to presenting mitigating evidence, to inform the jury of defendant’s personal position. In other cases, the court might permit the defendant himself to address the jury. Alternatively, the court could call persons with mitigating evidence as its own witnesses, or appoint new counsel to call them, and thereby place on the record the mitigating evidence essential to a careful, balanced penalty determination. In sum, both the state’s need to assure the fairness and reliability of the penalty determination, and defendant’s rights to personal choice and dignity, command respect. It is essential that the penalty trial constitute a balanced presentatio”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Dodd · State v. Martini

2. “To allow a capital defendant to prevent the introduction of mitigating evidence on his behalf withholds from the trier of fact potentially crucial information bearing on the penalty decision no less than if the defendant was himself prevented from introducing such evidence by statute or judicial ruling. In either case the state's interest in a reliable penalty determination is defeated.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Dodd · 51 Cal. 3d 471 - People v. Sanders

3. “Appellate counsel now suggests that defendant’s very acts of pleading guilty to a capital offense and waiving a jury trial amounted to a “suicide attempt” which disclosed his incompetence. The record does indicate that defendant felt great remorse for his offenses and was prepared to suffer the consequences of a judgment of death. But that attitude does not necessarily demonstrate an incompetence to stand trial or to plead guilty. His plea and waiver were concurred in by counsel. As stated in [People v.] Teron, at the guilt phase a defendant bears no duty to present a defense or to rebut the People’s case, and the fact that he declines to present a defense does not demonstrate a lack of capacity to waive his rights. (23 Cal.3d [103] at p. 115, 151 Cal.Rptr. 633 , 588 P.2d 773 [1979].)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Cal. 3d 705 - People v. Deere · 653 F. Supp. 1114 - Singleton v. Lockhart