People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably 60 Cal. 2d 631 - People v. Morse (1964), 42 Cal. 3d 730 - People v. Rodriguez (1986)
44 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 5 Cal. 2d 714 - People v. Ottey · State v. White · 50 Cal. 2d 570 - People v. Friend · 47 Cal. 2d 749 - People v. Friend · 40 Cal. 2d 146 - People v. Barclay
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court may make such comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination of the cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It seems clear from the use of the word ‘comment’ in section 19 of article VI that a trial judge is empowered to do more than merely summarize the evidence and that he may analyze the testimony critically, giving his opinions for the guidance of the jury.... “Prior to its amendment in 1934, section 19 of article VI provided that a judge could ‘state the testimony,’ as well as declare the law, so that the change in language would be meaningless if viewed as permitting only such action. . . . “. . . the intent of the voters was to make the judge a real factor in the administration of justice, rather than a mere referee, that the constitutional amendment removed the prior prohibition against his power to comment, and that he is no longer confined to a colorless recital of the evidence but may analyze the testimony and express his views with respect to its credibility. “A judge’s power to comment on the evidence, of course, is not unlimited. [Citations.] He may not withdraw material evidence from the jury’s consideration or distort the testimony, and his comments should be temperately and fairly made, rather than being argumentative or contentious to a degree amounting to partisan advocacy. The jury, as required by the constitutional provision, must remain as the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses, and the judge should make clear that his views are not binding but advisory only. “The extent to which a judge is free to comment on the evidence ”
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.