78 Cal. App. 3d 788 - In Re Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Prior to the 1975 amendment to Penal Code section 1473, the rule was Clear that to obtain habeas corpus relief pn the ground of perjured testimony, the petitioner was required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that perjured testimony was adduced at his trial, (2) that this was known to a representative of the state, and (3) that the perjured testimony may have affected the outcome of the trial. (In re Imbler, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 560 ; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 272 [...]; see Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1975 supp.) § 804, p. 866.) “In 1975 (Stats. 1975, ch. 1047, § 2) Penal Code section 1473 dealing with habeas corpus relief was amended to provide in pertinent part: “‘(b) A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons: “‘(1) False evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against a person at any hearing or trial relating to his incarceration;... “‘(c) Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to in subdivision (b) is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus brought pur suant to subdivision (b).’ (Italics added.)” (In re Wright, supra, 78 Cal.App.3d 788, 807-808 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Pratt

2. “substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 Cal. 3d 408 - In Re Hall