Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
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. | neutral | “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.