100 Ill. App. 2d 473 - People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We also suggest that the defendants be tried separately if the State again intends to use Walker’s oral statement. As related by the police, Walker’s statement detailed the principal role played by Scott in the Campbell burglary. It was neither made in Scott’s presence nor assented to by him and, despite warnings by the court that it should be considered only as to Walker (as was done in the instant case), its use would be prejudicial error. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293 , 88 S.Ct. 1921 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968). See too, People v. Barbaro, 395 Ill. 264 , 69 N.E.2d 692 (1946). The error’in the present case from the use of Walker’s statement inculpating Scott is not raised on appeal but this was a plain error of which we take notice (citations omitted) and is an additional reason why Scott’s conviction must be reversed. The fact that Walker took the stand and that Scott had an opportunity to cross-examine him did not mitigate the error. Walker denied making the incriminating statement; confrontation was therefore meaningless and cross-examination would have been futile.” People v. Scott, 100 Ill.App.2d 473 , 241 N.E.2d 579, 583 (1968).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 Ariz. App. 526 - State v. Coleman