121 Ill. 2d 21 - People v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he issue of a conflict was first raised sua sponte by the trial court after Jones’ statement was read into evidence by an assistant State’s Attorney. During the ensuing bench discussion, defense counsel acknowledged that he had not previously recognized the ‘gravity of the conflict in the statements.’ Defense counsel went on to state that at that point he ‘had only planned on putting on one’ defendant to testify. As the trial proceeded only Jones testified, and he repudiated his earlier statement inculpating Harris and gave testimony corroborating Harris’ exculpatory post-arrest statement. At the close of the People’s case, the court invited defense counsel to move for mistrial if they thought a conflict was present. When proceedings resumed the next day, defense counsel moved for mistrial, but based the motion largely on certain surprise testimony of the victim. While the conflict issue was obliquely referred to, counsel failed to articulate the nature of the conflict, and the motion for mistrial was denied. Based upon this record, we find that the actions and comments of defense counsel were insufficient assertions of a conflict of interest to merit reversal under Holloway ***. *** [D]efense counsel did not seek severance or appointment of separate counsel. Moreover, the potential conflict was raised only by the trial court sua sponte. Finally, when given an opportunity to seek mistrial on the basis of conflict, counsel was utterly unable to articulate how its defense s”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 182 Ill. App. 3d 598 - People v. Williams · People v. Bradford

2. ““[W]e find that a conflict existed which was apparently resolved to Mosley’s detriment. We therefore find that Mosley was denied effective assistance of counsel, and affirm the appellate court as to Mosley. *** * * * *** Ross’ inculpatory statement was used against Mosley, but Ross did not testify at trial. Thus, this damaging testimony went before the fact finder unrepudiated and unimpeached. We need not speculate as to the reasons for Ross’ decision not to testify. It is enough to say that that decision did not operate to Mosley’s benefit, and that counsel with no conflict, perhaps at separate trials, would surely have proceeded differently. If Ross’ statement was not to be repudiated, counsel with no conflict would have at least sought to impeach it. We therefore find that a conflict of interest arose which manifested itself at trial to Mosley’s detriment. The presence in evidence of Ross’ statement implicating Mosley violated Mosley’s right to confrontation. (See Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 .) The joint representation of the two defendants in one trial created a clear conflict as to Mosley ***.” 121 Ill. 2d at 32, 33-34.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 182 Ill. App. 3d 598 - People v. Williams

3. “are not taken, the fact of a potential or possible conflict might deprive the defendant of the guaranteed assistance of counsel. Id. Spreitzer explained that adequate steps require a court to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Cole