52 Cal. 3d 367 - People v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
309 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 315 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Tuilaepa v. California (1994), 1 Cal. 4th 324 - People v. Price (1991)
309 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 · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Faretta v. California
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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t may well be that `proof of the corpus delicti was available and at hand during the trial, but that in the absence of [a] specific objection calling for such proof it was omitted.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The corpus delicti `may be [proved] by circumstantial evidence [citation], and it need not be beyond a reasonable doubt. A slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient.' ... [¶] ... `[T]he corpus delicti rule is satisfied”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is now your duty to determine which of the two penalties, death or confinement in the state prison for life without possibility of parole, shall be imposed on the defendant. After having heard all of the evidence and after having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, you shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the applicable factors of aggravating and mitigating circumstances upon which you have been instructed. The weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances does not mean the mere mechanical counting of factors on each side of an imaginary scale or the arbitrary assignment of weights to any of them. “You are not required to place any specific weight or numerical value on any particular aggravating or mitigating circumstance. You are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem appropriate to each and all of the various factors you are permitted to consider. It is entirely up to you to determine whether in your independent opinion one or more factors outweigh others no matter what their number. In weighing the various circumstances, you simply determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances. “In weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, you are not to merely count numbers on either side. One mitigating circumstance may be sufficient to support a decision that death is not the app”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.