117 Ill. 2d 271 - People v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably 226 Ill. 2d 92 - People v. Wheeler (2007), Erickson v. Illinois (1988)
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Stovall v. Denno · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Wainwright v. Witt · Griffith v. Kentucky
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because Griffith addresses a rule which pertains to a constitutional right and the defendant herein seeks retroactive application of a rule which pertains to a statutory right, we do not deem Griffith controlling”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We first consider whether or not the trial court is required to accept a defendant’s pretrial waiver of the capital sentencing jury. We note, at the outset, that this was not the issue raised in Hett. The precise issue in Hett concerned the timing of a defendant’s waiver of the capital sentencing jury under section 9 — l(dX3) of the Criminal Code of 1961 ***. In Hett, this court held that the statute permitted the tender of a waiver prior to the commencement of trial. We further held that the statute empowered the trial court to accept a capital defendant’s pretrial waiver where the court found the waiver voluntary and knowing. The defendant in the instant case raises the next logical question but one not raised or addressed in Hett. That question is whether or not the trial court is required to accept a voluntary and knowing pretrial waiver. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear as well that, unless the defendant can demonstrate that the death questioning of prospective jurors produced an unfair jury, he would fare no better if we were to hold Hett retroactive. It is well established that a jury questioned regarding imposition of the death penalty is presumed to be a fair jury on the issue of guilt or innocence.” (Erickson, 117 Ill. 2d at 292 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Landgham
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.