50 Cal. 2d 75 - People v. Osslo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 172 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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... to the issue of [his] guilt or innocence.... Such falsifications cogently evidence consciousness of guilt and suggest that there is no honest explanation for incriminating circumstances, and thus are admissions of guilt. [Citations.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Cal. App. 3d 409 - People v. Zack · 185 Cal. App. 2d 47 - People v. Gotham

2. ““The rule applicable where there is evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that a crime has been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator thereof, has been many times reiterated by the reviewing courts of this state as follows ; The court on appeal ‘will not attempt to determine the weight of the evidence, but will decide only whether upon the face of the evidence it can be held that sufficient facts could not have been found by the jury to warrant the inference of guilt. For it is the function of the jury in the first instance, and of the trial court after verdict, to determine what facts are established by the evidence, and before the verdict of the jury, which has been approved by the trial court, can be set aside on appeal upon the ground’ of insufficiency of the evidence, ‘it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below. ... We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict. ’ If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.” (See also People v. Osslo, 50 Cal.2d 75, 84-85 [ 323 P.2d 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 211 Cal. App. 2d 173 - People v. Cooley

3. ““. . . It is true that there is no direct evidence of a conspiracy ; all the direct evidence bearing on the question is to the effect that the defendants who actually participated in the assault and battery had been instructed to avoid the use of violence. But ‘A conspiracy can generally be established only by circumstantial evidence. It is not often that the direct fact of a common unlawful design can be proved other than by the establishment of independent facts bearing on such design.’ (Cases cited.) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 Cal. App. 2d 804 - People v. Wooten