People v. Sam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 258 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 265 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Modus operandi is generally a means of proving the identity of the perpetrator of the crime charged, by demonstrating that the defendant had committed in the past other crimes sharing with the present offense features sufficiently unique to make it likely that the same person committed the several crimes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harmon v. State · Coleman v. State

2. “This case is a dramatic illustration of the prejudice that can be injected into a trial through the device of demonstrating prior criminal acts. By use of this stratagem, the prosecution was able to place before the jury the largely irrelevant but manifestly harmful information that defendant was a man who often drank to excess and was frequently drunk; that he was often belligerent and fought with others; that he had been living with a married woman not his wife; that he had struck that same woman with sufficient force to hospitalize her; that he had helped to assault his good friend Tubby so severely that an ambulance and the police had to be called; that he had admitted to one assault and battery and had been charged with another. In short, defendant was made to appear to be an antisocial individual of generally bad character, an immoral person unworthy of the jury's belief or consideration. Certainly, a substantial showing of probative value was required to justify admission of this prejudicial and inflammatory evidence so that the jury could dispassionately perform its function of ascertaining the truth as to the events involved in this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Gibson

3. “`The right of impeachment does not exist where the witness states he has no recollection of the fact concerning which he is examined.' This is not only the rule in California, but according to Wigmore, it is the general English and American rule confirmed by similar holdings in other jurisdictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Carter