People v. Aranda’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 932 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 993 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Bruton v. United States (1968), Gilbert v. California (1967)
27 federal appellate · 3 district · 932 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Jackson v. Denno · Pointer v. Texas · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson
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 993 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the absence, however, of a holding by the United States Supreme Court that the due process clause requires such change [from rule permitting joint trials when confession of one defendant implicates co-defendants], the rules we now adopt are to be regarded, not as constitutionally compelled, but as judicially declared rules of practice * * *.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“`[I]n criminal actions, where life or liberty is at stake, courts should not adhere to precedents unjust to the accused. It is never too late to mend.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““When the prosecution proposes to introduce into evidence an extrajudicial statement of one defendant that implicates a codefendant, the trial court must adopt one of the following procedures: (1) It can permit a joint trial if all parts of the extrajudicial statements implicating any codefendants can be and are effectively deleted without prejudice to the declarant. By effective deletions, we mean not only direct and indirect identifications of codefendants but any statements that could be employed against nondeclar ant codefendants once their identity is otherwise established. (2) It can grant a severance of trials if the prosecution insists that it must use the extrajudicial statements and it appears that effective deletions cannot be made. (3) If the prosecution has successfully resisted a motion for severance and thereafter offers an extrajudicial statement implicating a codefendant, the trial court must exclude it if effective deletions are not possible. Similar rules concerning joint trial have been adopted in other jurisdictions and have been found workable. [Citing case.]” 47 Cal.Rptr. 360 , 407 P.2d 272 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.