128 Ill. 2d 231 - People v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 143 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]lleged disparate treatment of prospective jurors would not be dispositive necessarily. Choosing jurors, more art than science, involves a complex weighing of factors. Rarely will a single factor control the decision-making process. ... “A characteristic deemed to be unfavorable in one prospective juror, and hence grounds for a peremptory challenge, may, in a second prospective juror, be outweighed by other, favorable characteristics.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rogers · State v. Williams

2. “[A] Batson hearing does not require trial-type procedures, such as the introduction of sworn testimony and the cross-examination of adverse witnesses.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goode v. Shoukfeh · People v. Trujillo

3. ““Whether to allow the appointment of an expert, and to permit introduction of his testimony, are questions committed to the discretion of the trial judge. A threshold requirement for the admission of expert testimony is that the proffered testimony be of assistance to the court or jury.” People v. Mack (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 231, 250 , cited in Eddmonds, 143 Ill. 2d at 536 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 157 Ill. 2d 324 - People v. Hall