Emery v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
604 F.3d 1102 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 35 Cal. 3d 547 - People v. Beeman · 14 Cal. 4th 605 - People v. Gardeley · Juan v. Allen III · 34 Cal. 4th 451 - People v. Briceno
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Does California’s criminal street gang enhancement statute, in particular the element of “specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members” in California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1), require proof that the defendant specifically intended to promote, further, or assist in other criminal gang activity, apart from the offense of conviction? 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Emery v. Clark“specific intent” element in the second prong of section 186.22(b)(1) would apply to the section 190.2(a)(22) special circumstance. As there is no separate authority interpreting the language”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Emery v. Clark“gang enhancement” embedded in the section 190.2(a)(22) special circumstance for a murder carried out by an active member of a criminal street gang to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Emery v. Clark
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.