People v. Luu’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2002
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Arizona v. Fulminante · Rushen v. Spain · People v. Curtis · People v. Fuller
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mr. Luu's interpreter is not present. However, we are prepared to proceed.... I don't think the interpreter is necessary for me to make my closing argument. I could be wrong about that. I think we prefer that we get this thing to the jury. I don't think it's going to affect Mr. Luu's right in this case. That is my personal opinion but I would perhaps ask this court to explain why the interpreter isn't here because I think if the jury sees they are not here there may be problems.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Luu v. People“I want to indicate that the gentleman who had been seated at the defense table during part of the trial, Mr. Nguyen, is for reasons that we've not been informed of not able to be here. So he's not here at this time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Luu v. People“although the defendant was present during closing arguments and the reading of jury instructions, ... the absence of his interpreter was tantamount to his not being present at all.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Luu v. People
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.