Gonzalez v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 3 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “290(a)(l)(A)’s 2 mandate that sex offenders register any change of address relates directly to the state interest in ensuring that it knows the whereabouts of its sex offenders. As noted by the California Supreme Court, “[e]nsuring offenders are readily available for police surveillance depends on timely change-of-address notification.” [Wright v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 521 , 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 322 , 936 P.2d 101, 105 ] (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). A jury, however, acquitted Gonzalez of the charge he violated this requirement. Accordingly we adopt the jury’s implicit determination that Gonzalez was living at his registered address throughout the relevant time period in this case. By contrast, § 290(a)(l)(D)’s annual registration requirement, which Gonzalez was convicted of violating, is only tangentially related to the state’s interest in ensuring that sex offenders are available for police surveillance. Annual registration is merely a “backup measure to ensure that authorities have current accurate information.” People v. Carmony, 127 Cal.App.4th 1066 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 [citations omitted] (2005). Failure to comply with the annual registration requirement is “the most technical violation of the section 290 registration requirement,” and “by itself, pose[s] no danger to society.” People v. Cluff, 87 Cal.App.4th 991 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 80 [citations omitted] (2001).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 649 F. Supp. 2d 1048 - Calloway v. White

2. “announced three objective factors to guide review of a sentence for a term of years under the Eighth Amendment. First, a reviewing court must look to the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty.... Second, ‘it may be helpful to compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction.’ ... Finally, ... ‘courts may find it useful to compare the sentences imposed for [the] commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Norris v. Morgan