6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 18 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. Ochoa.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Ochoa Anchor | green | “was not denied the opportunity to provide input regarding a substantive response or re-instruction to the jury” | 3 |
| 2 | People v. Kisoon | green | “meaningful notice to counsel of the specific content of the jurors' request” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Ramirez | green | “deprived defendant of the opportunity to have input, through counsel or otherwise, into the court's response to an important, substantive juror inquiry” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. O'Rama | green | “means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors' request” | 3 |
| 5 | People v. Lykes | green | “the point of its decision in o'rama . . . was 'not to mandate adherence to a rigid set of procedures, but rather to delineate a set of guidelines calculated to maximize participation by counsel at a time when counsel's input is most meaningful, i.e., before the court gives its f…” | 3 |
| 6 | People v. Stocks | green | “contains a substantive inquiry, the trial court's failure to provide counsel an opportunity to participate meaningfully in formulating its response constitutes a mode of proceedings error that requires reversal,” | 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.