45 Cal. 3d 1126 - People v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 district · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 216 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 548 - Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994), 1 Cal. 4th 495 - People v. Kelly (1992)
3 district · 208 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 37 Cal. 3d 351 - People v. McDonald · United States v. Telfaire · 50 Cal. 2d 245 - People v. Lyons · 2 Cal. 3d 180 - People v. Sears
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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“CALJIC No. 2.92 or a comparable instruction should be given when requested in a case in which identification is a crucial issue and there is no substantial corroborative evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of such a character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Eyewitness testimony has been received in this trial for the purpose of identifying the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime [s] charged. In determining the weight to be given eyewitness identification testimony, you should consider the believability of the eyewitness as well as other factors which bear upon the accuracy of the witness’ identification of the defendant, including, but not limited to, any of the following: “[The opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act and the perpetrator of the act;] “[The stress, if any, to which the witness was subjected at the time of the observation;] “[The witness’ ability, following the observation, to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act;] “[The extent to which the defendant either fits or does not fit the description of the perpetrator previously given by the witness;] “[The cross-racial or ethnic nature of the identification;] “[The witness’ capacity to make an identification;] “[Evidence relating to the witness’ ability to identify other alleged perpetrators of the criminal act;] “[Whether the witness was able to identify the alleged perpetrator in a photographic or physical lineup;] “[The period of time between the alleged criminal act and the witness’ identification;] “[Whether the witness had prior contacts with the alleged perpetrator;] “[The extent to which the witness is either certain or uncertain of the identification;] “[Whether the witness’ identification is in fact the product of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Allen
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.