46 Cal. 3d 322 - People v. Kurtzman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 147 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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the jury must acquit of the greater offense before returning a verdict on the lesser included offense ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Cal. 5th 1077 - People v. Aranda · 212 Cal. App. 3d 395 - People v. Perez

2. “As for the sequence of deliberations, we have noted in other contexts that jurors should not be unduly influenced in their determination of the facts by matters extraneous to the evidence and arguments of counsel. This does not mean, however, that they must be free of all judicial influence. Where charges and associated verdict forms are complex, the trial judge has the discretion ... to forestall an anticipated deadlock or to assist the jury in moving beyond an actually threatened deadlock by directing the jury under an instruction such as CALJIC No. 8.75 at least as to the sequence in which verdicts will have to be ultimately rendered. That instruction helpfully returns the jury to the courtroom when the jury seems unable to agree on the greater charge in the course of its deliberations; and at that point the trial judge has the opportunity to emphasize that while the jury may consider charges in any order it wishes to facilitate ultimate agreement on a conviction or acquittal, it may not return a verdict on lesser offenses unless it has unanimously agreed on a disposition of the greater. It also permits the court to reiterate that if the jury is unanimous on a greater offense, no further deliberation may be necessary and to correct any misunderstanding of the law that the jury may express.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Labanowski

3. “I am going to ask you to go back and deliberate on the question of murder in the first degree. I want you to come back to me and tell me if you agree or disagree on that issue____ Before you get to the other lesser included offenses, I want to find out if you have unanimously agreed on the original charge, which is murder in the first degree____ [T]ell me what the status is on the one charge before we go to the lesser ones. Kurtzman, 250 Cal.Rptr. at 247 , 758 P.2d at 575 . Later, the trial judge told the jury foreman: "You understand that I wanted you to deliberate on that issue [second degree murder] and that issue alone?” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Ginter