Johnson v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
119 F.3d 513 · 1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2017
4 federal appellate · 2 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 Jackson v. Denno · Lindh v. Murphy · California v. Green · 157 Ill. 2d 484 - Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc. · 172 Ill. 2d 523 - In Re Lawrence M.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]n People v. Morales, [ 281 Ill. App. 3d 695 , 666 N.E.2d 839 (1996),] the Illinois Appellate Court recently decided this precise issue against Johnson’s position. In Morales, the defendant argued that the trial court must consider constitutional due[-]process factors before admitting a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to [section] 115 — 10.1. Morales, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 702-04 , *** 666 N.E.2d at 844-45 . In support of his due[-]process argument, the defendant in Morales *** argued that Johnsonl ] required *** that the trial court must initially determine the reliability of a statement by using the guidelines set forth in federal case law, specifically Leslie and Vogel. The Illinois Appellate Court responded by first explaining the rationale behind the Illinois legislature’s adoption of [section] 115 — 10.1. The legislature believed that prior inconsistent statements should he admitted substantively because: (1) the prior statement was made closer in time to the event in question than the statement at trial; (2) parties need protection from turncoat witnesses; (3) the witness is available for cross-examination, eliminating hearsay concerns of unavailability; and (4) the admission of such statements furthers the search for truth in a criminal proceeding. Morales, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 702 , *** 666 N.E.2d at 844 (citing Robert J. Steigmann, Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence in Illinois, 72 Ill. B.J. 638 (1984)). The Morales court also noted that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are aware that the United States Supreme Court has recently decided that the new provisions of Chapter 153 of the [AEDPA] ... are not applied retroactively to pending cases.”
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.