116 Ill. 2d 425 - People v. Whitehead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 135 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[D]efense counsel may not have it both ways by altering their trial strategy to make the best of the trial court’s order, depriving the reviewing court of a reviewable record, and still maintain that the order was erroneously entered.” People v. Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d 425, 443-44 , 508 N.E.2d 687, 693 (1987).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 319 Ill. App. 3d 949 - People v. Nitz · 401 Ill. App. 3d 585 - People v. Scott

2. ““A person may be found guilty but mentally ill and is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct if at the time of the commission of the offense he was not insane but was mentally ill. * * * A person is mentally ill, if at the time of the commission of the offense, he was afflicted by a substantial disorder of thought, mood or behavior which impaired his judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior or was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. * * * As to any charge, the defendant may be guilty but mentally ill if you find: First: Beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the offense charged; and Second: By a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the offense; and Third: That the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the commission of the offense. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, you should find the defendant guilty but mentally ill. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the first proposition has not been proved, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the first proposition has been proved but the defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, you should find the defendant not guilty by rea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 146 Ill. 2d 109 - People v. Johnson

3. “Vickie Wrobel, a five-year-old girl who lived with her parents in Joliet, was missing from the family residence during the evening of August 9, 1982. While searching for her, Vickie Wrobel’s mother asked the Wrobels’ tenant, Esther Harmon, whether she had seen Vickie. Esther Harmon, her daughter, LeAl-len Starbuck, and LeAllen’s husband, William Starbuck, lived with the defen dant in a house adjacent to the Wrobels’ tavern and home. On speaking with Vickie Wrobel’s mother, Esther Harmon discovered that both the defendant and the Harmon car, which the defendant sometimes used with her permission, were also missing. Local police agencies were notified that the defendant was suspected of stealing Esther Harmon’s car and that he might have taken Vickie Wrobel. Sometime after midnight the following morning, the defendant telephoned the Wrobels’ tavern and spoke with LeAllen Starbuck. He told LeAllen that he was calling from Samuel and Jeanine Star-buck’s in Godley; Jeanine is the defendant’s sister and is married to William Starbuck’s brother. LeAllen advised the defendant to stay at his sister’s home, and she then told the police where the defendant was located. Shortly after LeAllen’s call, area police arrived at the Starbuck residence in Godley. The officers saw Esther Harmon’s automobile parked in front of the residence, and from outside the car officers observed clothing on the front seat of the car that matched the description of clothing worn by Vickie Wrobel when she disap”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitehead v. Cowan