46 Cal. 3d 919 - People v. Bean’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 328 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 357 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Tuilaepa v. California (1994), 10 Cal. 4th 764 - People v. Stanley (1995)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 328 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Faretta v. California · United States v. Bagley · Gregg v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio
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 357 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The benefits to the state of joinder, on the other hand, were significant. Foremost among these benefits is the conservation of judicial resources and public funds. A unitary trial requires a single courtroom, judge, and court attaches. Only one group of jurors need serve, and the expenditure of time for jury voir dire and trial is greatly reduced over that required were the cases separately tried. In addition, the public is served by the reduced delay on disposition of criminal charges both in trial and through the appellate process. These considerations outweigh the minimal likelihood of prejudice through joinder of the charges in this case.”
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.