45 Cal. 3d 915 - People v. Guzman’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 240 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 249 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 324 - People v. Price (1991), 53 Cal. 3d 771 - People v. Cooper (1991)
5 federal appellate · 240 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 Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Faretta v. California · Griffin v. California · Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 249 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Testimony by the defendant. “(a) If the defendant has admitted to his lawyer facts which establish guilt and the lawyer’s independent investigation establishes that the admissions are true but the defendant insists on his right to trial, the lawyer must advise his client against taking the witness stand to testify falsely. “(b) If, before trial, the defendant insists that he will take the stand to testify falsely, the lawyer must withdraw from the case, if that is feasible, seeking leave of the court if necessary. “(c) If withdrawal from the case is not feasible or is not permitted by the court, or if the situation arises during the trial and the defendant insists upon testifying falsely in his own behalf, the lawyer may not lend his aid to the perjury. Before the defendant takes the stand in these circumstances, the lawyer should make a record of the fact that the defendant is taking the stand against the advice of counsel in some appropriate manner without revealing the fact to the court. The lawyer must confine his examination to identifying the witness as the defendant and permitting him to make his statement to the trier or the triers of the facts; the lawyer may not engage in direct examination of the defendant as a witness in the conventional manner and may not later argue the defendant’s known false version of facts to the jury as worthy of belief and he may not receive or rely upon the false testimony in his closing argument.” (See People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“vindicates the community's right to sit in judgment on crimes committed within its territory.... `As a result, where jurors act [] as the conscience of the community, they would be reflecting the conscience of their own community, however large, rather than the conscience of a community unaffected by the crime.'... Trials in the community of local criminal matters, particularly shocking crimes, provide a substitute for the natural human reactions of outrage, protest and some form of vengeful self-help.... Absent a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood of an unfair trial, a community retains the right to try its own crimes.”
1 later decision 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.