7 Cal. 3d 710 - People v. Sirhan’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 302 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 319 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 303 - People v. Thompson (1980), 9 Cal. 3d 626 - Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 302 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 319 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On the morning of June 5, 1968, defendant’s brothers, Adel and Munir, upon seeing a newspaper picture of defendant in connection with the Kennedy shooting, went to the police station, where Adel was interviewed by Sergeant Brandt, one of the officers who made the search. The officer then knew that the senator had been shot earlier that' same morning and presumably was aware that the senator was the successful Democratic candidate for President in the California primary. The officer further knew that the suspect was in custody and apparently knew that the suspect's identity had not theretofore been revealed. Adel advised the officer of the suspect’s identity and stated that he (Adel), his two younger brothers, Sirhan and Munir, and their mother lived at a specified address in Pasadena and that their father was in another country. The officer asked , if they could search the home, and Adel replied that ‘as far as he was concerned [they] could, however it was his mother’s house.’ When asked if he wanted the police to call her for permission, Adel replied that she did not know what had happened and he did not want to alarm her. “Sergeant Brandt, accompanied by two other officers and Adel, then went to the Sirhan residence, arriving about 10:30 a. m. on June 5,1968. Brandt testified that they ‘were interested in evidence of possible conspiracy in that there might be other people that were not yet in custody.’ He stated that there was nothing which ‘indicated [defendant] was engag”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“For example, one of the pages introduced by the defense (which had been excluded by the trial court when the prosecution attempted to introduce it) stated in part "I advocate the overthrow of the current president to the fucken (sic) United States of America. I have no absolute plans yet — but soon will compose some. I am poor — This country’s propaganda says that she is the best country in the world — I have not experienced this yet.... I firmly support the communist cause and its people — wether (sic) Russian, Chinese, Albanian, Hungarian or whoever — Workers of the World unite, you have nothing to loose (sic) but your Chains and a world to win.” Other pages introduced by the defense stated, "2 June 67 ... A Declaration of War Against America ... When in the course of human events, it has become necessary for me to equalize and seek revenge for all the inhuman treatment committed against me by the American people the manifestation of this Declaration will be executed by its pur-porter (s)(sic) as soon as he is able to command ... $2000 ... and to acquire some firearms.... The victims of the party in favor of this declaration will be or are now — the president, vice etc. — down the ladder. The time will be chosen by the author at the convenience of the accused ... the author expresses his wishes very bluntly that he wants to be recorded by historians as the man who triggered off the last war ... Sirhan must begin to work on uphold (sic) solving the problems and difficulties ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The use of indictments in all cases warranting serious punishment was the rule at common law [citation], and is required in certain federal prosecutions by the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution. It has long been the rule in this state, however, that felonies may be prosecuted by either indictment or information. [Citations.] Although there are differences between the two procedures, a defendant who is proceeded against by an indictment is not denied due process or equal protection. [Citations.] It similarly does not violate due process to initiate a prosecution by an information rather than an indictment. [Citations.]”
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.