54 Cal. 2d 621 - People v. Gould’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 424 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 454 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), Gilbert v. California (1967)
24 federal appellate · 424 state decisions — followed in 33 states
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 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · 98 Cal. App. 2d 1 - People v. Griffin · 45 Cal. 2d 590 - People v. Tarantino · 31 Cal. 2d 555 - People v. Slobodion · 32 Cal. 2d 535 - People v. Mehaffey
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 454 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Evidence of an extra-judicial identification is admissible, not only to corrobrate an identification made at the trial * * * but as independent evidence of identity. * * * [E]vidence of an extra-judicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier identification has greater probative value than an identification made in the courtroom after the suggestions of others and the circumstances of the trial may have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness’ mind. * * * [T]he principal danger of admitting hearsay evidence is not present since the witness is available at the trial for cross-examination.’ ””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Evidence of an extrajudicial identification is admissible, not only to corroborate an identification made at the trial (People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 560 [ 191 P.2d 1 ]), but as independent evidence of identity. Unlike other testimony that cannot be corroborated by proof of prior consistent statements unless it is first impeached (People v. Hardenbrook, 48 Cal.2d 345, 351 [ 309 P.2d 424 ]; People v. Kynette, 15 Cal.2d 731, 753-754 [ 104 P.2d 794 ]), evidence of an extrajudicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier identification has greater probative value than an identification made in the courtroom after the suggestions of others and the circumstances of the trial may have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness’ mind. (People v. Slobodion, 31 Cal.2d 555, 559-560 [ 191 P.2d 1 ]; United States v. Forzano, 190 F.2d 687, 689 ; see People v. Hood, 140 Cal.App.2d 585, 588 [ 295 P.2d 525 ]; People v. Bennett, 119 Cal.App.2d 224, 226 [ 259 P.2d 476 ]; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 1130, p. 208.) The failure of the witness to repeat the extrajudicial identification in court does not destroy its probative value, for such failure may be explained by loss of memory or other circumstances. The extrajudicial identification tends to connect the defendant with the crime, and the principal danger of admitting hearsay evidence is not present since the witness is available at the tria”
6 later decisions 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.