110 Ill. App. 3d 1092 - People v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
August 1993
most recently cited
4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Nardone v. United States · Henderson v. Kibbe · 82 Ill. 2d 268 - People v. Cox · 72 Ill. 2d 421 - People v. Murphy · 79 Ill. 2d 103 - People v. Greer
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Your decision must be arrived at upon the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, you will decide the issue of the defendant’s fitness or unfitness to stand trial by the greater weight of the evidence. A person is unfit to stand trial, if because of a mental or physical condition, he is unable: One, to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him; or, Two, to assist in his defense. After considering all of the evidence in this case, if you are convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that this defendant is unfit to such an extent that he does not understand the nature of the charge against him, or that he is unable to co-operate with his lawyer in a proper defense of the case, you will find by your verdict that the defendant was at the time of the impaneling of this jury and now is, unfit to stand trial. On the other hand, if you find from the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant in this case understands the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his lawyer in a proper defense of his case, you will, by your verdict, find that the defendant was at the time of the impaneling of this jury and now is fit to stand trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, the jury was properly instructed that defendant could be found fit only if the State had proved that fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Although we agree that omission of the second portion of the instruction would have been preferable, the additional information did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Also, the opening and closing statements by both the prosecution and de fense reflect the recognition that the burden of proof was on the State. Accordingly we find no plain error in the instruction given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.