8 Cal. 3d 815 - People v. Crowe’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 41 Cal. 3d 144 - People v. Balderas (1985), 48 Cal. 3d 1046 - People v. Bittaker (1989)
4 federal appellate · 109 state decisions
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 Swain v. State of Alabama · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Ham v. South Carolina · 1 Cal. 3d 379 - People v. Mosher · 3 Cal. 3d 421 - People v. Reilly
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The asking of a general question of a juror does not always direct his attention to all the elements which go to make up the subject matter of such question. For example, a juror in answer to a general question might state with perfect sincerity that he knew of no reason why he could not give the defendant a fair and impartial trial, but upon a further and more minute examination it might be shown that his conception of a fair and impartial trial for one who had been previously tried by a jury, ten of whom believed him guilty, differed in many material respects from that which the law accords to all persons accused of crime. Furthermore, he might presume the defendant innocent until proven guilty, but his state of mind might be such that it would require less evidence to convince him of defendant's guilt in a case where the latter had been previously tried with the result as above indicated, than if no previous trial had been had. He might be in perfect accord with the law which declares that a defendant shall not suffer conviction until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but having heard that the former jury stood ten to two for conviction, he might not feel called upon to scrutinize and weigh the evidence with that extreme care and caution which the law enjoins of every juror in passing upon the life and liberty of one against whom a criminal accusation has been made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'educate the jury panel to the particular facts of the case, to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way, to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, to argue the case, to indoctrinate the jury, or to instruct the jury in matters of law.' " ( People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal.3d 815 , 824, 106 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 506 P.2d 193 .) As defendant asserts, the issue of inmate safety and survival was "central to the defense to the capital/murder charges.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although each of the jurors asserted that he knew of no reason why he could not serve as an impartial juror, such assertions do not eliminate the necessity for additional reasonable inquiry to uncover concealed or subtle bias.... [¶] ... a biased juror may be unwilling to confess that bias openly, and ... questions to which there is a `right' and a `wrong' answer may be less likely to reveal such bias than more open-ended questions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.