witness stand rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

witness stand rule in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1925–1999 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Stonegreen
calctapp · 1965 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

22
Unruh v. Nelsongreen
cal · 1931 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

22
People v. Perezgreen
cal · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

22
People v. Wilsongreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

22
People v. De Georgiogreen
calctapp · 1960 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

22
Brown v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1958 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1973–1981
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

12
People v. Kippgreen
cal · 1998 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999We therefore cannot say that “ ‘there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ ” (People v. Kipp, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 367) for defense counsel’s decision to call Morgan as a witness, even though they could expect him to accuse defendant, as he had in the interview taped by Detective Milkey, of having previously been arrested for child molestation and to claim that defense attorney Bernstein had tried to bribe him to give false testimony.

11
People v. Adamsongreen
cal · 1946 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1961–1961
2 sentences

1961Defendant draws a distinction between comments such as defendant “has failed to deny or explain . . . ,” which are admissible, and “de *705 fendant did not take the stand to . . . explain or deny ...” He contends that People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478, 488 [ 165 P.2d 3 ], prohibits comments on “defendant’s failure to take the stand ...” The contention is adequately rebutted by the sentence appearing at page 486 of the Adamson opinion: “The prosecuting attorney commented repeatedly on the failure of the defendant to take the stand. ’ ’ There are many opinions of the courts holding this type of c

1961Defendant draws a distinction between comments such as defendant “has failed to deny or explain . . . ,” which are admissible, and “de *705 fendant did not take the stand to . . . explain or deny ...” He contends that People v. Adamson, 27 Cal.2d 478, 488 [ 165 P.2d 3 ], prohibits comments on “defendant’s failure to take the stand ...” The contention is adequately rebutted by the sentence appearing at page 486 of the Adamson opinion: “The prosecuting attorney commented repeatedly on the failure of the defendant to take the stand. ’ ’ There are many opinions of the courts holding this type of c

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Freshour green
cal · 1880
2 sentences

1981(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 365 U.S. 148 , 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], ‘[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts]

1973(See People v. Perez, 65 Cal.2d 615, 621 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 909 , 422 P.2d 597 ]; Unruh v. Nelson, 212 Cal. 130, 132-134 [ 297 P. 888 ]; People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; People v. Wilson, 254 Cal.App.2d 489, 491-492 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 240 ]; People v. Stone, 239 Cal.App.2d 14, 19 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 469 ]; People v. Di Georgio, 185 Cal.App.2d 413, 420-421 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 295 ].) As said in Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 155-156 [ 2 L.Ed.2d 589, 597 , 78 S.Ct. 622 ], “[One] cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice [of testifying to his own version of the facts] b

21973–1981
People v. Rabalete green
calctapp · 1938
1 sentence

1941The case of People v. Rabalete, 28 Cal. App. (2d) 480 [ 82 Pac. (2d) 707 ], decided by this court and cited by appellant, is easily distinguishable from the case at bar.

11941–1941
People v. Watson green
calctapp · 1913
2 sentences

1931(People v. Sullivan, 144 Cal. 471 [ 77 Pac. 1000 ]; People v. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 692 [ 132 Pac. 836 ].) The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense.

1931(People v. Sullivan, 144 Cal. 471 [ 77 Pac. 1000 ]; People v. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 692 [ 132 Pac. 836 ].) The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense.

11931–1931
People v. Kelly green
calctapp · 1925
2 sentences

1931(People v. Kelley, 70 Cal. App. 519 , at page 523 [ 234 Pac. 110 ].) There is nothing to indicate that the sentence was excessive, when all of the evidence in the case is considered, and it must be further observed that appellant did not receive the maximum sentence of six years, but was sentenced to be confined for a period of three years.

1931(People v. Kelley, 70 Cal. App. 519 , at page 523 [ 234 Pac. 110 ].) There is nothing to indicate that the sentence was excessive, when all of the evidence in the case is considered, and it must be further observed that appellant did not receive the maximum sentence of six years, but was sentenced to be confined for a period of three years.

11931–1931
People v. Sullivan green
cal · 1904
2 sentences

1931(People v. Sullivan, 144 Cal. 471 [ 77 Pac. 1000 ]; People v. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 692 [ 132 Pac. 836 ].) The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense.

1931(People v. Sullivan, 144 Cal. 471 [ 77 Pac. 1000 ]; People v. Watson, 21 Cal. App. 692 [ 132 Pac. 836 ].) The corpus delicti was conclusively established when appellant himself took the witness-stand in his defense.

11931–1931
People v. Emmons green
calctapp · 1910
2 sentences

1925The supreme court said that it had previously been told “that it is difficult, logically, to attribute the giving of such an instruction to anything other than a purpose to expressly disparage the defendant, ‘the very thing that a court has no authority to do, in view of our constitutional provision. ’ ” People v. Emmons, 13 Cal. App. 487 [ 110 Pac. 151 ], is also relied upon.

1925The supreme court said that it had previously been told “that it is difficult, logically, to attribute the giving of such an instruction to anything other than a purpose to expressly disparage the defendant, ‘the very thing that a court has no authority to do, in view of our constitutional provision. ’ ” People v. Emmons, 13 Cal. App. 487 [ 110 Pac. 151 ], is also relied upon.

11925–1925

Where else courts name it

CA 7 (1925–1999) FL 2 (1966–2004) IL 2 (1970–2011)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check