People v. Charles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 135 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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As we have previously indicated, however, failure to adhere to the Aranda procedure constitutes reversible error only if it causes prejudice. Although we find no such prejudice here as to either defendant, the record fails to dispel Boddie’s contention that his confession, unlike that of Charles, was obtained in violation of Escobedo and Dorado . As we later explain, the introduction of Boddie’s inadmissible confession constituted error as to both defendants; that error was automatically prejudicial as to Boddie but not as to Charles. We have therefore concluded that the conviction of Boddie, but not that of Charles, must be reversed. “Turning first to the basic Aranda violation, we consider crucial the fact that each defendant’s case was completely shattered by his own detailed confession, corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of the robbery victim. In this setting, the fact that each defendant was also implicated by his eodefendant’s confession cannot realistically have contributed to either conviction. Although the present case was tried by a judge sitting without a jury, we need not decide whether that fact alone would here preclude the requisite showing of prejudice, since we find no reasonable probability in this case that even a jury would have returned a more favorable verdict for either defendant if, as required by Aranda , the defendants had been tried separately or each confession had been ‘edited’ to include no references damaging to the nondeclarant. (People ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 253 Cal. App. 2d 403 - People v. Wattie

2. “rules. MOSK, J. I concur. The result reached by the majority in reversing the Boddie conviction is compelled by the clear Dorado violation. I cannot agree, however, that we should apply People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 [ 47 Cal. Rptr. 353 , 407 P.2d 265 ], to cases tried before the decision was rendered, even though hopefully there may be few in number. To do so makes rare prescience a requisite in prosecutors and trial judges. The Chief Justice emphasized in Aranda (at p. 530) that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Charles

3. “furnishes no reason to limit that change to purely prospective operation. In this area of the law, as in others, [6] substance and procedure are so interwoven that their attempted segregation into clean-cut categories becomes meaningless; here, as elsewhere, the hoary dichotomy between the substantive and the procedural cannot serve as a talismanic solution to the retroactivity problem. We have previously decided pending cases under newly announced rules no less”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Charles