123 Ill. 2d 523 - People v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably James v. Illinois (1990), State v. Witte (1992)
4 federal appellate · 64 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Calandra
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant argued, however, that Walker, Harris, Hass and Havens 5 are distinguishable from this case in one decisive respect: in all those cases the defendant himself testified, and it was his own testimony which was impeached by admission of the previously suppressed evidence. According to this view, when a defendant elects to take the stand and testify in a manner inconsistent with suppressed evidence, he thereby ‘waives’ his right to have the impeaching material excluded. Thus, the argument runs, if the defendant does not testify no such ‘waiver’ occurs and the evidence must remain excluded, even if other defense witnesses testify falsely. We do not accept those contentions. *** *** [A] defendant may not directly perjure himself and then hide behind the exclusionary rule[;] he also cannot be allowed to use perjurious testimony through a biased defense witness, in this case the principal defense witness, without affording the prosecution an opportunity to challenge the veracity of that testimony. We therefore conclude that admission of the evidence was not inconsistent with the reasoning of the cases discussed above. *** [T]his exception to the exclusionary rule is limited to *** rebut statements made by a defense witness on direct examination and not to rebut statements elicited on cross-examination ***.*** The statement of the witness sought to be rebutted by the suppressed evidence must not be elicited through cross-examination by the prosecutor, but must be an asse”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“hair, worn shoulder length in a slicked-back”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. James v. Illinois
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.