112 Ill. 2d 301 - People v. Stack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Inquiry into the feeling or viewpoint of the venire regarding such controversial legal propositions is consistent with a bona fide examination conducted so that the parties can intelligently exercise their prerogatives to challenge. Furthermore, a defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to an impartial jury (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV) are diminished when jurors are prejudiced against an appropriate verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity." Stack, 112 Ill.2d at 312-13 , 97 Ill.Dec. 676 , 493 N.E.2d 339 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 164 Md. App. 1 - Logan v. State · 283 Ill. App. 3d 979 - People v. Mapp

2. ““[K]nowing the serious nature of the charges do you think the fact that you are going to hear such things and see some very unpleasant things, would you, nonetheless, be able to consider a defense of insanity in this case and nonetheless be able to vote for it if you were satisfied Larry Scott was insane at the time of this act? *** *** [A]s a legal concept a person who is accused of a crime may not be responsible if, because of a mental illness or disease, he is unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, that is, he is unable, because of his disease, to do right instead of wrong. Do all four of you agree with that concept? *** Do you believe that a person who commits a crime can commit it while insane? *** *** [If] you find Larry Scott committed the crime while insane would you have any difficulty in returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 148 Ill. 2d 479 - People v. Scott

3. ““The point of the Doyle holding is that it is fundamentally unfair to promise an arrested person that his silence will not be used against him and thereafter to breach that promise by using the silence to impeach his trial testimony. It is equally unfair to breach that promise by using silence to overcome a defendant’s plea of insanity. In both situations, the state gives warnings to protect constitutional rights and implicitly promises that any exercise of those rights will not be penalized.” (Wainwright v. Greenfield (1986), 474 U.S. 284 , _, 88 L. Ed. 2d 623, 630-31 , 106 S. Ct. 634, 639 , citing Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 150 Ill. App. 3d 158 - People v. Gurga