[1] The ruling effectively freed Hall, a white man, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ling Sing, a Chinese miner in Nevada County.

[5]: 8–9 Section 14 of the Act concerning Crime and Punishment, passed in 1850, stated that "No black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man.

For instance, Ah Toy, a woman from China who arrived at San Francisco in 1848, started a brothel in 1850, becoming the first Chinese madam operating in the United States.

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State, except through necessity, bringing with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in open violation of law; whose mendacity is proverbial; a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference, is now presented, and for them is claimed, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government.The case had a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alexander Wells which simply stated: "From the opinion of the Chief Justice, I most respectfully dissent.

While this was primarily because of the 1854 anti-prostitution laws instituted in California, it is also believed to have been motivated in part by the increased risk of harassment due to the decision in People v. Hall.

In January 1855, William Speer, the Presbyterian minister in San Francisco Chinatown, responded strongly, "The principles of the Magna Carta, the prerogatives of juries, the rights of judges and advocates, Republicanism and Christianity, and common humanity are all outraged by this iniquitous decision of the Supreme Court of California".

[11]: 22 In April 1857, the San Francisco Evening Bulletin editorialized, "We regret this action, based as it is entirely on prejudice, and can only express our conviction that a period will ultimately arrive when it will be clear to all that the law as it stands is mischievous and prejudicial to the highest degree to the public interests.