People v. Santo’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 180 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 191 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably People v. Aranda (1965), 41 Cal. 3d 144 - People v. Balderas (1985)
3 federal appellate · 180 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 Shepherd v. Florida · People v. Gallardo · 24 Cal. 2d 177 - People v. Alcalde · People v. Isby · 41 Cal. 2d 814 - People v. Wayne
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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The accomplice need not be corroborated as to every fact to which he testifies. The evidence which corroborates the accomplice need not be direct; it may be circumstantial. Although the corroborating evidence must do more than raise a conjecture or suspicion of guilt, it is sufficient if it tends in some degree to implicate the defendant. (People v. Henderson (1949), 34 Cal.2d 340, 342-343 [ 209 P.2d 785 ]; People v. Barclay (1953), supra, 40 Cal.2d 146, 156 [ 252 P.2d 321 ]; People v. Wayne (1953), 41 Cal.2d 814, 822 [ 264 P.2d 547 ].) To be sufficient the implicating evidence ‘must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the offense.’ (People v. Gallardo (1953), 41 Cal.2d 57, 63 [ 257 P.2d 29 ].)””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The evidence need not corroborate the accomplice as to every fact to which he testifies but is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth; it must tend to implicate the defendant and therefore must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the crime but it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense charged. [Citing eases.] ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . In the case at bar, we are not called upon to hold that the corroborating evidence referred to is sufficient to sustain a conviction. All that is necessary in this case is to find that there is sufficient testimony in the record which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged.””
2 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.