6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Guidice.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Guidice Anchor | green | “a circumstantial evidence charge is required only where the evidence against a defendant is 'wholly circumstantial” | 5 |
| 2 | People v. Baker | green | “there is no reasonable possibility that the introduction of defendant's statement at trial played a role in the jury's verdict” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Velazquez | green | “the people may not rely on the pedigree exception if the questions, though facially appropriate, are likely to elicit incriminating admissions because of the circumstances of the particular case” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Tirado | green | “permitted the reasonable inference that defendant had both knowledge and possession of the narcotics and paraphernalia” | 3 |
| 5 | Baker v. Turner Construction Co. | green | “eyewitness testimony . . . established that defendant engaged in acts which directly proved that at the very least he acted as a lookout while the crime was being committed” | 3 |
| 6 | Lotysz v. Montgomery | green | “elicited through routine administrative questioning that is not designed to elicit an incriminating response” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.