46 Cal. 3d 212 - People v. Boyde’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2021 · most notably Boyde v. California (1990), 51 Cal. 3d 1179 - People v. Gonzalez (1990)
7 federal appellate · 154 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Bruton v. United States · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Wainwright v. Witt
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When two or more defendants are jointly charged with any public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, they must be tried jointly, unless the court order separate trials. . . .” “The Legislature has in this manner expressed a preference for joint trials. [Citations.] The statute nevertheless permits the trial court to order separate trials, and the decision to do so is one ‘largely within the discretion of the trial court.’ [Citations.] Whether denial of a motion to sever constitutes an abuse of discretion must be decided on the facts as they appear at the time of the hearing on the motion to sever. [Citation.]” (People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 231-232 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 758 P.2d 25 ].)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here a person in authority makes an express or clearly implied promise of leniency or advantage for the accused which is a motivating cause of the decision to confess, the confession is involuntary and inadmissible as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“inconceivable [that] the jury would have believed that, though it was permitted to hear defendant's background and character evidence and his attorney's lengthy argument concerning that evidence, it could not consider that evidence.”
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.