62 Cal. 2d 436 - People v. Modesto’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 215 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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`that his prior convictions will prejudice the jury.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harkness v. State · Griffin v. California

2. ““were freely and voluntarily made at a time when the officers were concerned primarily with the possibility of saving [the missing girl’s] life. The paramount interest in saving her life, if possible, clearly justified the officers in not impeding their rescue efforts by informing defendant of his rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel.... In the present case the officers’ investigatory and rescue operations were necessarily inextricably interwoven until [the missing girl’s] body was found, and it would be needlessly restrictive to exclude any evidence lawfully obtained during the rescue operations.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Modesto · People v. Manning

3. “The California rule allowing comment by counsel and instruction by the judge on the defendant’s failure to take the stand is hardly an idiosyncratic aberration. The Model Code of Evidence, and the Uniform Rules of Evidence both sanction the use of such procedures. The practice has been endorsed by resolution of the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute, and has the support of the weight of scholarly opinion. The formulation of procedural rules to govern the administration of criminal justice in the various States is properly a matter of local concern. We are charged with no general supervisory power over such matters; our only legitimate function is to prevent violations of the Constitution’s commands. California has honored the constitutional command that no person shall “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The petitioner was not compelled to testify, and he did not do so. But whenever in a jury trial a defendant exercises this constitutional right, the members of the jury are bound to draw inferences from his silence. No constitution can prevent the operation of the human mind. Without limiting instructions, the danger exists that the inferences drawn by the jury may be unfairly broad. Some States have permitted this danger to go unchecked, by forbidding any comment at all upon the defendant’s failure to take the witness stand. Other States have dealt with this danger in a variety of ways, as the Court’s opinion indicates. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harkness v. State