98 Cal. App. 2d 1 - People v. Griffin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

203 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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence prove independently either that the defendant is guilty of the offense or that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . “ Sufficient corroboration may be furnished by the defendant’s own testimony. . . . “ The entire conduct of the parties, their relationship, acts, and conduct during and after the crime, may be taken into consideration by the jury. . . . “ If the corroboration is inculpatory it is not essential that it extend to all of the elements of the offense, nor to every fact and detail included in the testimony of the accomplices. ... “Conversely, such evidence is sufficient if it tends in some slight degree, at least, to implicate the defendant. It need not be strong. . . . “ It is sufficient, even though circumstantial and slight, if the connection of the defendant with the alleged crime may be reasonably inferred from the corroborative evidence.” (See also People v. Henderson, 34 Cal.2d 340, 342-343 [ 209 P.2d 785 ]; People v. Santo, 43 Cal.2d 319, 327 [ 273 P.2d 249 ].)”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Curry-Allen · 128 Cal. App. 2d 458 - People v. Williams

2. ““It is not necessary that the corroborative evidence prove independently either that the defendant is guilty of the offense or that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citing cases.] If this were not true and if it were required that a complete case for the prosecution be established without reference to the testimony of the accomplice, there would then be no occasion to offer the accomplice as a witness. “ Sufficient corroboration may be furnished by the defendant’s own testimony [citing cases], or by admissions or confessions made by him [citing cases], or by silence in the face of an accusatory statement. [Citing cases.] “The entire conduct of the parties, their relationship, acts, and conduct during and after the crime, may be taken into consideration by the jury in determining the sufficiency of the corroboration. [Citing cases.] “If the corroboration is inculpatory it is not essential that it extend to all of the elements of the offense, nor to every fact and detail included in the testimony of the accomplices. [Citing cases.] “ Conversely, such evidence is sufficient if it tends in some slight degree, at least, to implicate the defendant. It need not be strong. [Citing cases.] “The testimony of the accomplice need not be corroborated by direct evidence, or, stated in another way: Circumstantial evidence suffices for the purpose of corroboration. [Citing cases.] “It is sufficient, even though circumstantial and slight, if the connection of the defendant with the al”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 115 Cal. App. 2d 452 - People v. Jordan

3. ““While the jury may consider the circumstance that a witness is an accomplice, in passing upon his credibility as a witness ... his testimony is not to be rejected merely because he is an accomplice, and if there is other evidence which measures up to the requirement of the code .. ., tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged, then such testimony of the accomplice is to be considered by the jury, as is any other testimony, and must be given the weight to which the jurors may conclude that it is entitled. . . . The evidence tending to connect a defendant with the commission of the crime may be slight and, when standing by itself, entitled to but little consideration. . . . The law does not require that the evidence necessary to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice shall tend to establish the precise facts testified to by the accomplice; • and strong corroborative testimony is not necessary to support a judgment of conviction founded on the testimony of an accomplice. Even though circumstantial and slight, the evidence is, nevertheless, sufficient if it tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. . . . The defendant’s own statements and admissions, made in connection with other testimony, may afford corroboratory proof sufficient to sustain a verdict. ... It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence should go so far as to establish by itself, and without the aid of the testimony of an accomplice, that the defenda”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 Cal. App. 2d 394 - People v. Hooker