People v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “pursuant to a warrant issued by a Judge who had personally examined the informant. This simplified the suppression court's review because a presumption of validity attached to the warrant given that a Magistrate had already reviewed the purported basis for the search and determined it to be valid [citation] and the suppression court had before it a record consisting of the written application and the transcript of the informant's sworn oral testimony offered in support of the application. Thus, it was not necessary to develop a factual record of the basis for the search. The [suppression] court was left with the relatively uncomplicated task of deciding whether, based on the warrant application and supporting affidavit along with the informant's oral testimony, the issuing Judge reasonably could have concluded that probable cause existed. [Citations.] This is precisely the type of inquiry which can be resolved accurately on an ex parte, in camera basis ( cf., Alderman v. United States [(1969)] 394 U.S. 165, 182-183 [ 22 L.Ed.2d 176, 191-192 , 89 S.Ct. 961 ] [factual issues too complex to rely wholly on in camera judgment of trial court]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Cal. 4th 948 - People v. Hobbs

2. “[The] defendant sought to inspect the warrant and the supporting documents and to have a hearing to challenge the issuing Judge's determination that probable cause for the search existed. The [trial] court denied discovery and, following an in camera suppression hearing, denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was not afforded the opportunity to see the supporting documents or to participate in the hearing because the court found that disclosure of the informant's identity and/or statements could compromise the safety of the informant or the integrity of future investigations....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Cal. 4th 948 - People v. Hobbs

3. “Analysis starts by focusing on the nature of the proceeding for there is a fundamental difference between a trial to adjudicate guilt or innocence and a pretrial hearing to suppress evidence. The due process requirements for a hearing may be less elaborate and demanding than those at the trial proper. [Citations.] This is so because, as the [United States] Supreme Court has observed, at a pretrial hearing, `”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Cal. 4th 948 - People v. Hobbs