People v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably 20 Cal. 4th 936 - People v. Smithey (1999), 31 Cal. 2d 469 - People v. Westek (1948)
2 federal appellate · 53 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 Viereck v. United States · 18 Cal. App. 72 - People v. Burke · People v. Mayes · People v. Perry
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The argument that defendant’s counsel ‘opened the gates’ is unavailing. An error that is prejudicial is no less so because it results from a lack of knowledge on the part of either counsel or both. Legitimate cross-examination does not extend to matters improperly admitted on direct examination. Failure to object to improper questions on direct examination may not be taken advantage of on cross-examination to elicit immaterial or irrelevant testimony. The so-called ‘open the gates’ argument is a popular fallacy. ‘Questions designed to elicit testimony which is irrelevant to any issue in the ease on trial should be excluded by the judge, even though opposing counsel has been allowed, without objection, to introduce evidence upon the subject.’ (27 Cal.Jur. p. 74). ‘ It is a settled rule that cross-examination as to matters irrelevant to the issue may and should be excluded— even though, in some eases, testimony relative thereto was elicited upon direct examination—and that a party may not, under the guise of cross-examination, introduce evidence that is not competent within the meaning of the established rules.’ (27 Cal.Jur., p. 106).” (See, also, 1 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 15.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is a vast difference between inquiring about reports, rumors and the like, of a character witness and questions as to what the witness knows of defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Reputation is not what a character witness may know about defendant. Reputation is the estimation in which an individual is held; in other words, the character imputed to an individual rather than what is actually known of him either by the witness or others.”
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.